ReviewBJS open2017
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation.
Review in BJS open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of methodology and reporting quality of global guidelines on fever in children.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Appraisal of the current guidelines for the management of diverticular disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021Pooled it
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
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are widely used to inform the development of protocols for clinical management. Previous work has demonstrated that the quality of CPGs varies widely. This systematic review aimed to determine the quality of CPGs in kidney transplantation in the UK.
methodsCPGs in kidney transplantation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified through searches of MEDLINE, NHS NICE Evidence, and websites of relevant UK societies. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool, three appraisers rated the quality of CPGs across six domains, the overall quality of each CPG, and whether it should be recommended for future use. Domain scores were calculated, and inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was reported.
resultsThirteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. The domain 'clarity of presentation' scored highest, followed closely by 'scope and purpose'. The poorest scoring domains were 'applicability' and 'editorial independence'. Editorial independence also had the widest range of scores. Of the 13 CPGs, one was not recommended for future use, seven were recommended for use with modifications, and five for future use with no need for modification. Mean overall CPG quality was 5 (range 3-6) of a maximum score of 7, and mean inter-rater reliability was substantial with an ICC of 0·71.
conclusionUK CPGs scored satisfactorily, although with wide variation in how well each domain scored both within and across CPGs. The quality of UK CPGs can still be improved.
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.