Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565225›Full record

ReviewJournal of evidence-based medicine2021

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

Xufei Luo, Yunlan Liu, Mengjuan Ren, Xianzhuo Zhang, Estill Janne, Meng Lv, Qi Wang, Yang Song, Joseph L Mathew, Hyeong Sik Ahn and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Xufei LuoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0811-6326
Yunlan LiuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Mengjuan RenSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xianzhuo ZhangThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Estill JanneInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Meng LvSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qi WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Yang SongIberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
Joseph L MathewAdvanced Pediatrics Centre, PGIMER Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India.
Hyeong Sik AhnDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
Myeong Soo LeeSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yaolong ChenSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8598-6504
Lanzhou University · CNIberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESImpact · CAKorea Institute of Oriental Medicine · KRKorea University · KRPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

National Key Research & Development Plan: Research on the Development and Evaluation of International Standards of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2019YFC1712000Special funding for prevention and control of emergency of COVID-19 from Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province GSEBMKT-2020YJ01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSince the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines.

methodsWe searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines.

resultsA total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy.

conclusionsThe methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicSARS-CoV-2clinical practice guidelineCOVID-19diagnosistreatment

Identifiers

PMID33565225
PMCPMC8013412
OpenAlexW3128250231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.