Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30344166›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Appraising the quality standard underpinning international clinical practice guidelines for the selection and care of vascular access devices: a systematic review of reviews.

Ian Blanco-Mavillard, Miguel Angel Rodríguez-Calero, Enrique Castro-Sánchez, Miquel Bennasar-Veny, Joan De Pedro-Gómez

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

5 authors.

Ian Blanco-MavillardQuality, Teaching and Research Unit, Hospital de Manacor, Manacor, Spain.
Miguel Angel Rodríguez-CaleroHealth Care Office, Balearic Islands Health Service, Palma, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2468-5660
Enrique Castro-SánchezNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3351-9496
Miquel Bennasar-VenyDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1668-2141
Joan De Pedro-GómezEvidence, Lifestyles and Health Research Group, Research Institute of Health Sciences, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCatheter-related bloodstream infections are one of the most important adverse events for patients. Evidence-based practice embraces interventions to prevent and reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients. At present, a growing number of guidelines exist worldwide. The purpose of the study was to assess clinical practice guidelines for peripheral and central venous access device care and prevention of related complications.

designSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines: We conducted a search of the literature published from 2005 to 2018 using Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Science. We also evaluated grey literature sources and websites of organisations that compiled or produced guidelines. Guideline quality was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, Second Edition tool by three independent reviewers. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the concordance between reviewers.

resultsWe included seven guidelines in the evaluation. The concordance between observers was substantial, K=0.6364 (95% CI 0.0247 to 1.2259). We identified seven international guidelines, which scored poorly on crucial domains such as applicability (medium 39%), stakeholder involvement (medium 65%) and methodological rigour (medium 67%). Guidelines by Spanish Health Ministry and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence presented the highest quality.

conclusionsIt is crucial to critically evaluate the validity and reliability of clinical practice guidelines so the best, most context-specific document is selected. Such choice is a necessary prior step to encourage and support health organisations to transfer research results to clinical practice. The gaps identified in our study may explain the suboptimal clinical impact of guidelines. Such low adoption may be mitigated with the use of implementation guides accompanying clinical documents.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInternationalityStakeholder ParticipationVascular Access Devicesadverse eventsclinical practice guidelineevidence-based nursingimplementationquality appraisalvascular access

Identifiers

PMID30344166
PMCPMC6196863

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.