SynthesisSystematic reviews2020
The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative patient safety recommendations: systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological transparency of preoperative clinical practice guidelines for elective surgery. Systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).
methodsSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists, and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence, and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology.
resultsWe included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last 5 years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain "applicability" obtained the worst score 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. "Guidelines' applicability" and "monitoring" were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past 5 years.
conclusionsWe present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines' quality.
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.