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
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/212410

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