Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33704538›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021

Treatment of urinary incontinence: a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.

Flávia Blaseck Sorrilha, Lauren Giustti Mazzei, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Silvio Barberato-Filho, Juliana Castro, Analaura Castro, Claudia Marcela Vélez, Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Flávia Blaseck SorrilhaGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6264-5205
Lauren Giustti MazzeiGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luciane Cruz LopesGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silvio Barberato-FilhoGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana CastroGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Analaura CastroGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Claudia Marcela VélezUniversity of Antioquia, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia.
Cristiane de Cássia BergamaschiGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil. cristiane.motta@prof.uniso.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThis systematic review evaluated the rigor of the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

methodsThe searched sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and specific databases of CPG. Reviewers, organized in triplicate and independently, selected the studies and assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, which contains six domains for classification. The classification of the CPGs prioritized the domain 3 (developmental rigor) considering: high (score > 60%), moderate (score 30-60%), or low quality (score < 30%). The results were checked for discrepancies and decided by consensus. The interventions were described. Descriptive statistics presented the results.

resultsOf the ten CPGs evaluated, five were of high methodological quality, three were of moderate quality, and two of low quality. Three documents were not recommended for use. The domains with the highest scores were scope and purpose (mean = 90.1%) and clarity of presentation (mean = 88.9%). The domains of editorial independence (mean = 41.4%) and applicability (mean = 29.3%) were those with the lowest score. The most cited interventions in CPGs were the nonpharmacological, such as lifestyle interventions, bladder training, or re-education and pelvic floor muscle training.

conclusionMost guidelines showed rigor in development and were recommended for use; however, editorial independence and applicability were domains that need to be improved in these documents. Our findings can guide the choice of CPG for the treatment of urinary incontinence.

Indexed as

Urinary IncontinenceBibliometricsDatabases, FactualDinucleoside PhosphatesHumansLife StyleDinucleoside PhosphatesClinical practice guidelinesSystematic reviewUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

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.