ArticleBMJ open2019
Assessment of the methodological quality of local clinical practice guidelines on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical practice guidelines for the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Quality assessment of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of pregnant women with sickle cell disease using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Pooled it
- Effect of stress management based self-care counseling on glycemic control in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- Patient-Centred Gestational Diabetes Care: Preference Elicitation Methods and Machine Learning Innovations.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- Article
- A protocol for a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy.HRB open research · 2021Article
- A protocol for a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for recurrent miscarriage.HRB open research · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGestational diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, and it is important that well-written clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the methodological quality of hospital-based CPGs on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.
designWe conducted an assessment of local clinical guidelines in English for gestational diabetes using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) to assess and validate methodological quality. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We sought a representative selection of local CPGs accessible by the internet. Criteria for inclusion were (1) identified as a guideline, (2) written in English, (3) produced by or for the hospital in a Western country, (4) included diagnostic criteria and recommendations concerning gestational diabetes, (5) grounded on evidence-based medicine and (6) accessible over the internet. No more than two CPGs were selected from any single country.
resultsOf the 56 CPGs identified, 7 were evaluated in detail by five reviewers using the standard AGREE II instrument. Interrater variance was calculated, with strong agreement observed for those protocols considered by reviewers as the highest and lowest scoring based on the instrument. CPG results for each of the six AGREE II domains are presented categorically using a 5-point Likert scale. Only one CPG scored above average in five or more of the domains. Overall scores ranged from 91.6 (the strongest) to 50 (the weakest). Significant variation existed in the methodological quality of CPGs, even though they followed the guideline of an advising body. Specifically, appropriate identification of the evidence relied on to inform clinical decision making in CPGs was poor, as was evidence of user involvement in the development of the guideline, resource implications, documentation of competing interests of the guideline development group and evidence of external review.
conclusionsThe limitations described are important considerations for updating current and new CPGs.
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.