The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review

Autores
Ciapponi, Agustín; Tapia López, Elena; Virgilio, Sacha; Bardach, Ariel Esteban
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Background: Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results: We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability"obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability"and "monitoring"were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years. Conclusions: We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, 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: Tapia López, Elena. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Virgilio, Sacha. 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
AGREE-II
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
GRADE
PERIOPERATIVE CARE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
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:11336/142205
Acceder
id CONICETDig_c931b43f508069630e9d8e44f1cda530
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/142205
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic reviewCiapponi, AgustínTapia López, ElenaVirgilio, SachaBardach, Ariel EstebanAGREE-IICLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINESGRADEPERIOPERATIVE CARESYSTEMATIC REVIEWhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background: Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results: We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability"obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability"and "monitoring"were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years. Conclusions: We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, 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: Tapia López, Elena. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Virgilio, Sacha. 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 Central2020-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/142205Ciapponi, Agustín; Tapia López, Elena; Virgilio, Sacha; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9; 1; 7-2020; 1-162046-4053CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s13643-020-01404-8info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:59:23Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/142205instacron: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 09:59:23.982CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
title The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
spellingShingle The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
Ciapponi, Agustín
AGREE-II
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
GRADE
PERIOPERATIVE CARE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
title_short The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
title_full The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
title_fullStr The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
title_sort The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Ciapponi, Agustín
Tapia López, Elena
Virgilio, Sacha
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
author Ciapponi, Agustín
author_facet Ciapponi, Agustín
Tapia López, Elena
Virgilio, Sacha
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
author_role author
author2 Tapia López, Elena
Virgilio, Sacha
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv AGREE-II
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
GRADE
PERIOPERATIVE CARE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
topic AGREE-II
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
GRADE
PERIOPERATIVE CARE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
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: Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results: We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability"obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability"and "monitoring"were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years. Conclusions: We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, 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: Tapia López, Elena. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Virgilio, Sacha. 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: Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results: We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability"obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability"and "monitoring"were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years. Conclusions: We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines' quality.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-07
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/11336/142205
Ciapponi, Agustín; Tapia López, Elena; Virgilio, Sacha; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9; 1; 7-2020; 1-16
2046-4053
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/142205
identifier_str_mv Ciapponi, Agustín; Tapia López, Elena; Virgilio, Sacha; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: A systematic review; BioMed Central; Systematic Reviews; 9; 1; 7-2020; 1-16
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/10.1186/s13643-020-01404-8
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_ 1842269578533535744
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares