ReviewBMC gastroenterology2016
An appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for constipation: a right attitude towards to guidelines.
Review in BMC gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and variations in recommendations.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Examining constipation assessment and management of patients with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care: a multi-site retrospective case note review of clinical practice.BMC palliative care · 2019Observational
- A pragmatic comparative study of palliative care clinician's reports of the degree of shadowing visible on plain abdominal radiographs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Observational
- Prevalence and Self-recognition of Chronic Constipation: Results of an Internet Survey.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are formally developed statements that assist users to provide proper health care for a kind of disease and play a significant contribution in healthcare system. This study report the methodological quality of CPGs on constipation.
methodsThe "Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation" (AGREEII) instrument was developed to determine the quality of CPGs. A comprehensive search was developed using five databases and three guideline websites until/up to December, 2015. Four independent authors evaluated the methodological issues of the CPGs by the AGREEII instrument.
resultsWe identified 22 relevant guidelines on constipation from 1234 citations. The overall agreement among evaluators was 0.84 using the intra-class correlation coefficient. The mean AGREEII scores for the domains "scope and purpose" (51.77) and "rigor of development" (56.73) were moderate; afterward, three domains "stakeholder involvement" (32.23), "editorial independence" (29.59) and "applicability" (29.14) were low scores. The "clarity and presentation" (23.73) had the lowest scores.
conclusionAlthough existing constipation guidelines may accurately reflect current clinical practices, many guidelines' methodological quality is low. Therefore, more emphasis and attentions should be taken to the development of high-quality guidelines.
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.