Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28283488›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal.

Shirley H Bush, Katie L Marchington, Meera Agar, Daniel H J Davis, Lindsey Sikora, Tammy W Y Tsang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Delirium in a surgical context from a nursing perspective: A hybrid concept analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022
    Article
  10. A Clinician's View of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. Mental health care for older adults: recent advances and new directions in clinical practice and research.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shirley H BushDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8907-1283
Katie L MarchingtonDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Meera AgarCentre for Cardiovascular and Chronic Care, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Daniel H J DavisMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, UK.
Lindsey SikoraHealth Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tammy W Y TsangBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12019/1Wellcome Trust 107467/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality.

designSystematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES: Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search.

results3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies.

conclusionsDelirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeliriumHumansMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicYoung AdultAppraisal of Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrumentClinical practice guidelinesdeliriumquality

Identifiers

PMID28283488
PMCPMC5353343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.