SynthesisBMJ evidence-based medicine2022
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.
Synthesis in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Semmelweis Framework: structuring evidence foundations and expert opinion in clinical practice guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Recommendation Map for Type 2 Diabetes: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Identifying actionable statements in Chinese health guidelines: a cross-sectional study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Defining expert opinion in clinical guidelines: insights from 98 scientific societies - a methodological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- GRADE good practice statements: a time to say "good-bye"? A new typology for normative statements on interventions.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Management Guidelines: Perspectives on Methodology and Clinical Guidance.Neurocritical care · 2023Article
- Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Good Practice Statements for the treatment of nicotine dependence.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2023Article
- Enhancing the Trustworthiness of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 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
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic.
main outcome measuresWe used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.
results253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling.
conclusionsStatements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.
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.