SynthesisThe British journal of dermatology2022
Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?
Synthesis in The British journal of dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Experience and Preferences for Treatments in Atopic Dermatitis.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- The Patient Voice in Atopic Eczema Guidelines: How Do We Make it Standard Practice?The patient · 2026Review
- Exploring the role of breastfeeding, antibiotics, and indoor environments in preschool children atopic dermatitis through machine learning and hygiene hypothesis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Diagnosis and treatment for anal fistula: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Effect of Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of Efficacy and Treatment Needs.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
- Challenges in the Use of the Treat-to-Target Strategy in Atopic Dermatitis in Latin America: A Case Series Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Healthcare Disparities in Atopic Dermatitis in Latin America: A Narrative Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2023Review
- A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the management of pain, sedation, delirium and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- The sound of silence: where are the voices of patients in eczema guideline development?The British journal of dermatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised.
objectivesTo identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE).
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer's Red Flags.
resultsForty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored 'excellent' on all AGREE II domains and three scored 'poor' on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country's gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. 'Applicability' and 'rigour of development' were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; 'external review', 'updating procedures' and 'rating strength of recommendations' were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for 'limited or no involvement of methodological expertise' and 'no external review'. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions.
conclusionsOverall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.
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.