ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2022
The Quality and Clinical Applicability of Recommendations in Ostomy Guidelines: A Systematic Review.
Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication-related challenges in patients living with an ostomy: Insights from a national cross-sectional exploratory survey.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Best Practice Guideline Development Methods: An Integrated Approach Based on the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario's Methods.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Critical Evaluation of the 2016 SOSORT Clinical Guidelines on the Detection and Clinical Management of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using the AGREE II Tool: A Chiropractic Perspective.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring the Impact of a Structured Educational Approach on Peristomal Skin Complications: An Interim Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To systematically search ostomy clinical practice guidelines, critically assess their quality and clinical applicability of recommendations, and summarize the recommendations. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: The PubMed, ProQuest and CINAHL databases, eight guideline databases, and three ostomy institution websites were searched on September 3, 2021. Review Methods: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX) were used to assess the guideline. Results: The initial search identified 1475 documents. Of these, 27 full-text documents were reviewed. Finally, 10 guidelines were included. Among these, the 2019 Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) guidelines had the highest total scores using AGREE II and AGREE-REX. The 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and 2018 European Hernia Society (EHS) were also ranked as high-quality and evaluated as "recommended." The median of the "applicability" domain was the lowest (45%) among the six AGREE II domains. The median of the "values and preferences" domain was the lowest (38%) among the three AGREE-REX domains. In total, 172 recommendations were summarized and parastomal hernia received the most attention among the recommendations. Conclusion: The quality of the 10 clinical practice guidelines varied widely. The three identified high-quality guidelines might be appropriate first choices in daily ostomy care and management practice and can be tailored to the local context. Ostomy guidelines require further improvement in the "applicability" and "values and preferences" domains. No Patient or Public Contribution: This review only searched and evaluated relevant documents, so such details do not apply to this review.
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.