SynthesisBMJ open2020
Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Compliance with Australian Orthopaedic Association guidelines does not reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism after total hip and knee arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Current status survey of the extramural hospital management of venous thromboembolism after total hip and knee arthroplasty in China.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Internal Validation of a Risk Scoring System for Venous Thromboembolism After Total hip or Knee Arthroplasty.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in up to 40%-80% of patients after hip and knee arthroplasty. Clinical decision-making aided by guidelines is the most effective strategy to reduce the burden of VTE. However, the quality of guidelines is dependent on the strength of their evidence base. The objective of this article is to critically evaluate the quality of VTE prevention guidelines and the strength of their recommendations in VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty.
methodsRelevant literature up to 16 March 2020 was systematically searched. We searched databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang and nine guidelines repositories. The identified guidelines were appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II and appraised the strength of their recommendations independently. Following quality assessment, a predesigned data collection form was used to extract the characteristics of the included guideline.
resultsWe finally included 15 guidelines. Ten of the included guidelines were rated as 'recommended' or 'recommended with modifications'. The standardised scores were relatively high in the domains of Clarity of Presentation, and Scope and Purpose. The lowest average standardised scores were observed in the domains of Applicability and Stakeholder Involvement. In reference to the domains of Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence, the standardised scores varied greatly between the guidelines. The agreement between the two appraisers is almost perfect (intraclass correlation coefficients higher than 0.80). A considerable proportion of the recommendations is based on low-quality or very-low-quality evidence or is even based on working group expert opinion.
conclusionsIn summary, the majority of the recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, and further confirmation is needed. Furthermore, guideline developers should pay more attention to methodological quality, especially in the Stakeholder Involvement domain and the Applicability domain.
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.