Literature DB >> 33941879

Erectile dysfunction management: a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.

Berk Hazir1, Hakan Bahadir Haberal2, Ahmet Asci2, Asif Muneer3,4, Ahmet Gudeloglu2.   

Abstract

Our study aimed to assess the methodological strengths and weaknesses of erectile dysfunction clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for individuals using the AGREE II tool. Erectile dysfunction related CPGs were identified from three databases: the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Guidelines International Network, and PubMed between 2000 and 2020. We designed an independent assessment for each of the erectile dysfunction related CPGs using the AGREE II tool. Four appraisers performed these assessments. The literature search identified 8 CPGs that met our inclusion criteria. The evaluation of the AGREE II domains of each individual revealed that the median scores of domains related to applicability were quite low (39%). Also, the median scores of domains related to the rigour of development and the stakeholder involvement were relatively low (53% and 63%). We determined the highest median scores in three AGREE II domains: clarity of presentation (80.5%), editorial independence (77%), and scope and purpose (89.5%). We found that the European Association of Urology (EAU), the American Urological Association (AUA), and the British Society for Sexual Medicine (BSSM) guidelines had >60% in >4 domains and that their average AGREE II scores were over 70%. In the Canadian Diabetic Association (CDA) and the Japanese Society for Sexual Medicine (JSSM) guidelines, we found that >4 domains were >60%, but their average AGREE II scores were below 70%. The British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Urologic Association (CUA), and the Malaysian Urologic Association (MUA) guidelines had >60% in <3 domains. We highly recommended EAU, AUA and BSSM guidelines, while we moderately recommended CDA and JSSM guidelines. BMJ, CUA and MUA guidelines were weakly recommended. The quality of the guidelines for erectile dysfunction was variable according to AGREE II. We noted significant deficiencies in the methodological quality of the CPGs developed by different organisations in the areas of applicability and rigour of development.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33941879     DOI: 10.1038/s41443-021-00442-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Impot Res        ISSN: 0955-9930            Impact factor:   2.408


  2 in total

Review 1.  The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies.

Authors:  Pablo Alonso-Coello; Affan Irfan; Ivan Solà; Ignasi Gich; Mario Delgado-Noguera; David Rigau; Sera Tort; Xavier Bonfill; Jako Burgers; Holger Schunemann
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2010-12

2.  Is the National Guideline Clearinghouse a Trustworthy Source of Practice Guidelines for Child and Youth Anxiety and Depression?

Authors:  Stephanie Duda; Christine Fahim; Peter Szatmari; Kathryn Bennett
Journal:  J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2017-07-01
  2 in total
  3 in total

1.  Association Between Prediabetes and Erectile Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mingyu Jin; Shaoying Yuan; Bo Wang; Luqi Yi; Chenxia Wang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 5.555

2.  Qualitative and quantitative analysis of doctor-patient interactions during andrological consultations.

Authors:  Daniele Santi; Giorgia Spaggiari; Marilina Romeo; Riccardo Ebert; Federico Corradini; Claudio Baraldi; Antonio R M Granata; Vincenzo Rochira; Manuela Simoni; Laura Gavioli; Natacha S A Niemants
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 4.456

3.  Accurate and time-saving, two-step intracavernosal injection procedure to diagnose psychological erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Daniele Santi; Giorgia Spaggiari; Manuela Simoni; Antonio R M Granata
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 4.456

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.