Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35142870›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2022

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for recurrent urinary tract infections using AGREE II: a systematic review.

Jorik J Pat, Lambertus P W Witte, Martijn G Steffens, Robin W M Vernooij, Tom A T Marcelissen, Paulina Fuentes, Herney A Garcia-Perdomo, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Marco H Blanker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Jorik J PatDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.j.pat@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9019-7083
Lambertus P W WitteDepartment of Urology, Isala clinics, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Martijn G SteffensDepartment of Urology, Isala clinics, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Robin W M VernooijDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tom A T MarcelissenDepartment of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Paulina FuentesFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile.
Herney A Garcia-PerdomoDivision of Urology Department of Surgery. School of Medicine, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
Hector Pardo-HernandezIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Marco H BlankerDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisRecommendations for preventing and diagnosing recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) tend to vary between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) because of low-quality scientific evidence, potentially leading to practice variation and suboptimal care. We assessed the quality of existing CPGs for recurrent UTI.

methodsA systematic search was performed from January 2000 to June 2021 in PubMed and EMBASE for CPGs on recurrent UTI prevention or hospital diagnostics in Dutch, English, and Spanish. Each CPG was assessed by four appraisers in a multidisciplinary review team, using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

resultsWe identified and assessed eight CPGs published between 2013 and 2021. The scope and purpose (mean and standard deviation: 67.3 ± 21.8) and clarity of presentation (74.8 ± 17.6) domains scored highly. However, issues with methods, patient participation, conflict of interests, and facilitators and barriers were common and resulted in lower scores for the rigour of development (56.9 ± 25.9), applicability (19.6 ± 23.4), stakeholder involvement (50.4 ± 24.6), and editorial independence (62.1 ± 23.1) domains. Overall, two CPGs were recommended, three were recommended with modifications, and three were not recommended.

conclusionsSignificant room for improvement exists in the quality of CPGs for recurrent UTI, with most displaying serious limitations in the stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability domains. These aspects must be improved to decrease diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty. Developers could benefit from using checklists and following guidelines when developing de novo CPGs.

Indexed as

Urinary Tract InfectionsHumansAGREEGuidelineRecurrent urinary tract infectionsReview

Identifiers

PMID35142870
PMCPMC9119892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.