ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2022
Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.
Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.
methodsA search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus.
resultsOverall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title ('guideline' vs 'consensus statement'/ 'recommendations') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse.
conclusionsCOVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.
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.