ArticlePloS one2018
The different clinical guideline standards in Brazil: High cost treatment diseases versus poverty-related diseases.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Association Between Socioeconomic Conditions and Biologic Prescriptions for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System: An Ecological Study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of clinical guidelines in the care of laryngitis and pharyngitis according to AGREE II.CoDAS · 2025Article
- Clinical guidelines for herpes labialis: recommendations and quality evaluation according to AGREE II.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2024Review
- The organization, weaknesses, and challenges of the control of thalidomide in Brazil: A review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Review
- Clinical practice guidelines in Brazil - developing a national programme.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Each year, evidence-based clinical guidelines gain more space in the health professionals' practice and in services organization. Due to the scarcity of scientific publications focused on diseases of poverty, the development of well-founded clinical guidelines becomes more and more important. In view of that, this paper aims to evaluate the quality of Brazilian guidelines for those diseases. The AGREE II method was used to evaluate 16 guidelines for poverty-related diseases (PRD) and 16 guidelines for global diseases whose treatment require high-cost technologies (HCD), with the ultimate aim of comparing the results. It was found that, in general, the guideline development quality standard is higher for the HCD guidelines than for the PRD guidelines, with emphasis on the "rigour of development" (48% and 7%) and "editorial independence" (43% and 1%) domains, respectively, which had the greatest discrepancies. The HCD guidelines showed results close to or above international averages, whereas the PRD guidelines showed lower results in the 6 domains evaluated. It can be concluded that clinical protocol development priorities need some redirecting in order to qualify the guidelines that define the healthcare organization and the care of vulnerable populations.
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.