Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31215148›Full record

ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2019

An evaluation of WHO emergency guidelines for Zika virus disease.

Susan L Norris, Henry Louis, Veronica I Sawin, Teegwendé V Porgo, Yuk Hei Agnes Lau, Qi Wang, Mauricio Ferri

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Susan L NorrisWHO Guidelines Review Committee Secretariat, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0042-2452
Henry LouisWHO Guidelines Review Committee Secretariat, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Veronica I SawinWHO Guidelines Review Committee Secretariat, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5912-3767
Teegwendé V PorgoDepartment of Social and Preventative Medicine, Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0298-0711
Yuk Hei Agnes LauDepartment of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Qi WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Chinese GRADE Center-Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, People's Republic of China.
Mauricio FerriWHO Guidelines Review Committee Secretariat, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

Government of JapanUNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (WHO/TDR)Wellcome TrustWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the face of an unclear causal association between Zika virus in utero exposure and congenital abnormalities and urgent demand for guidance, the World Health Organization (WHO) had to produce timely and trustworthy guidelines during the 2016 Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

methodsThis is a cross-sectional evaluation of WHO emergency guidelines produced during the Zika virus disease PHEIC from 1 February to 18 November 2016. We assessed adherence to WHO publication requirements and the reporting of guideline development processes associated with trustworthiness. In the absence of quality appraisal tools for guidelines developed under compressed timeframes, we applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.

resultsWe included 21 guidelines (13 de novo and 8 updates). Six guidelines used a formal evidence review process. Most guidelines involved external experts in the development process and collected declarations of interest. Peer review was reported in six documents. Most emergency guidelines included updating plans. The highest scoring AGREE II domain was clarity of presentation (median score 78%); the lowest scoring domain was applicability (median score 18%).

conclusionWHO developed moderate- to high-quality emergency guidelines in the challenging context of a PHEIC. We found improvement opportunities for WHO guideline development teams in the use of evidence to formulate recommendations, the collection of declarations of interest, reporting of conflicts of interest, and the use of existing WHO organizational quality assurance processes.

Indexed as

EmergenciesGlobal HealthPractice Guidelines as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesDisease OutbreaksFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleWorld Health OrganizationZika Virus InfectionAGREE IIevaluation studiesevidence-based practiceglobal healthguidelinesmethodsquality controlWorld Health OrganizationZika virus disease

Identifiers

PMID31215148
PMCPMC6771472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.