ArticleEuropean radiology2021
The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
- Quality and consistency of clinical practice guideline recommendations for PET/CT and PET: a systematic appraisal.European radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.
methodsThe latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures.
resultsForty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median.
conclusionThe use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture. KEY POINTS: • The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33683391What 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.