Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review
- Autores
- Ciapponi, Agustín; Perelli, Lucas; Cohen Arazi, Hernán; Solioz, Germán; Bardach, Ariel Esteban
- Año de publicación
- 2021
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
Fil: Perelli, Lucas. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Cohen Arazi, Hernán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Solioz, Germán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina - Materia
-
Internal Medicine
Difficult airway
Intubation
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Systematic review
GRADE
AGREE-II - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/212410
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_8f86eb7a76e9409078759508ce717ff2 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/212410 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic reviewCiapponi, AgustínPerelli, LucasCohen Arazi, HernánSolioz, GermánBardach, Ariel EstebanInternal MedicineDifficult airwayIntubationClinical Practice GuidelinesSystematic reviewGRADEAGREE-IIhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Perelli, Lucas. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Cohen Arazi, Hernán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Solioz, Germán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaBioMed Central2021-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/212410Ciapponi, Agustín; Perelli, Lucas; Cohen Arazi, Hernán; Solioz, Germán; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9-2021; 1-132046-4053CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.21203/rs.3.rs-441504/v1info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-441504/v1info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:08:03Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/212410instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:08:03.623CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
title |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
spellingShingle |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review Ciapponi, Agustín Internal Medicine Difficult airway Intubation Clinical Practice Guidelines Systematic review GRADE AGREE-II |
title_short |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
title_full |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
title_fullStr |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
title_sort |
Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Ciapponi, Agustín Perelli, Lucas Cohen Arazi, Hernán Solioz, Germán Bardach, Ariel Esteban |
author |
Ciapponi, Agustín |
author_facet |
Ciapponi, Agustín Perelli, Lucas Cohen Arazi, Hernán Solioz, Germán Bardach, Ariel Esteban |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Perelli, Lucas Cohen Arazi, Hernán Solioz, Germán Bardach, Ariel Esteban |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Internal Medicine Difficult airway Intubation Clinical Practice Guidelines Systematic review GRADE AGREE-II |
topic |
Internal Medicine Difficult airway Intubation Clinical Practice Guidelines Systematic review GRADE AGREE-II |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality. Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina Fil: Perelli, Lucas. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Cohen Arazi, Hernán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Solioz, Germán. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina |
description |
Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-09 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/212410 Ciapponi, Agustín; Perelli, Lucas; Cohen Arazi, Hernán; Solioz, Germán; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9-2021; 1-13 2046-4053 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/212410 |
identifier_str_mv |
Ciapponi, Agustín; Perelli, Lucas; Cohen Arazi, Hernán; Solioz, Germán; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9-2021; 1-13 2046-4053 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.21203/rs.3.rs-441504/v1 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-441504/v1 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
BioMed Central |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
BioMed Central |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1842270029235617792 |
score |
13.13397 |