SynthesisPloS one2014
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines related to multiple sclerosis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical practice guidelines in idiopathic facial paralysis: systematic review using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.Journal of neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Association between clinic-level quality of care and patient-level outcomes in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2023Observational
- A systematic review of guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis.BMC rheumatology · 2019Article
- Article
- Guidelines on vitamin D replacement in bariatric surgery: Identification and systematic appraisal.Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 2016Review
- Guidelines for the use of survivorship care plans: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Increase in NF-κB-sensitive miRNA-146a and miRNA-155 in multiple sclerosis (MS) and pro-inflammatory neurodegeneration.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can provide clinicians with explicit recommendations on how to manage health conditions and bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. Unfortunately, the quality of CPGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) has not been evaluated.
objectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs on MS using the AGREE II instrument.
methodsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched four databases and two websites related to CPGs, including the Cochrane library, PubMed, EMBASE, DynaMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), and Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM). The searches were performed on September 20th 2013. All CPGs on MS were evaluated by the AGREE II instrument. The software used for analysis was SPSS 17.0.
resultsA total of 27 CPGs on MS met inclusion criteria. The overall agreement among reviews was good or substantial (ICC was above 0.70). The mean scores for each of all six domains were presented as follows: scope and purpose (mean ± SD: 59.05 ± 16.13), stakeholder involvement (mean ± SD: 29.53 ± 17.67), rigor of development (mean ± SD: 31.52 ± 21.50), clarity of presentation (mean ± SD: 60.39 ± 13.73), applicability (mean ± SD: 27.08 ± 17.66), editorial independence (mean ± SD: 28.70 ± 22.03).
conclusionsThe methodological quality of CPGs for MS was acceptable for scope, purpose and clarity of presentation. The developers of CPGs need to pay more attention to editorial independence, applicability, rigor of development and stakeholder involvement during the development process. The AGREE II instrument should be adopted by guideline developers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.