ArticleBMJ open2019
Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of stress urinary incontinence using AGREE II instrument: a systematic review protocol.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Treatment of urinary incontinence: a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.International urogynecology journal · 2021Pooled it
- Quality assessment of the guidelines for the management of malignant pleural effusions and ascites.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
- Quality and Specific Concerns of Clinical Guidelines for Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine: A Critical Appraisal.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStress urinary incontinence is a major health problem, and several clinical guidelines have been formulated and released regarding this in different countries. However, the recommendations in these guidelines formulated by different organisations and countries are inconsistent. This review aims to conduct a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of stress urinary incontinence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a comprehensive search in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, three Chinese databases and six guideline databases. The databases will be searched from January 2003, and the comprehensive search will be done again to include all the qualified guidelines before making conclusions. The quality of clinical practice guidelines will be assessed by three appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument, and this will be scored. The recommendation available in the guidance will also be summarised in different domains including the diagnosis standard, recommended examination and questionnaire for assessment, conservative treatment and surgical treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The results will help inform the health practitioners about the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115743.
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.