Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36405357›Full record

ReviewHealth data science2021

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review.

Siya Zhao, Shuya Lu, Shouyuan Wu, Zijun Wang, Qiangqiang Guo, Qianling Shi, Hairong Zhang, Juanjuan Zhang, Hui Liu, Yunlan Liu and 16 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health data science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

26 authors.

Siya ZhaoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Shuya LuDepartment of Pediatric, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-9650
Shouyuan WuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Zijun WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qiangqiang GuoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qianling ShiThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Hairong ZhangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Juanjuan ZhangSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Hui LiuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8245-6025
Yunlan LiuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xianzhuo ZhangThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ling WangSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Mengjuan RenSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ping WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Hui LanSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qi ZhouEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yajia SunSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jin CaoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qinyuan LiNational Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, China International Science and Technology Cooperation Base of Child Development and Critical Disorders, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Janne EstillInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Joseph L MathewAdvanced Pediatrics Centre, PGIMER Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India.
Hyeong Sik AhnDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-7466
Myeong Soo LeeKorea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-7641
Xiaohui WangSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2370-1152
Chenyan ZhouDepartment of Pediatric, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5020-3197
Yaolong ChenInstitute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9841-5233

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. Methods: We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs. Results: We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence. Conclusions: Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Identifiers

PMID36405357
PMCPMC9629660

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.