Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36922853›Full record

ReviewAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2023

Brazilian society of rheumatology methodological guide for the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines in rheumatology.

Ana Karla Guedes de Melo, Ana Luíza Mendes Amorim Caparroz, Mirhelen Mendes de Abreu, Daniela Castelo Azevedo, Leonardo Santos Hoff, Sérgio Candido Kowalski, Themis Mizerkowski Torres, Solange Murta Barros, Gilda Aparecida Ferreira, Odirlei André Montecielo and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
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

12 authors.

Ana Karla Guedes de MeloHospital Universitário Lauro Wanderley, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.
Ana Luíza Mendes Amorim CaparrozEvidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. amorim.analuiza@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4813-4871
Mirhelen Mendes de AbreuHospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Daniela Castelo AzevedoMais 60 Saúde, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Leonardo Santos HoffUniversidade Potiguar, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Sérgio Candido KowalskiUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Themis Mizerkowski TorresFaculdade de Medicina do Centro, Universitário São Camilo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Solange Murta BarrosUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Gilda Aparecida FerreiraFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Odirlei André MontecieloUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Ricardo Machado XavierUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Virgínia Fernandes Moça TrevisaniEvidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are developed to align standards of health care around the world, aiming to reduce the incidence of misconducts and enabling more effective use of health resources. Considering the complexity, cost, and time involved in formulating CPG, strategies should be used to facilitate and guide authors through each step of this process. The main objective of this document is to present a methodological guide prepared by the Epidemiology Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the elaboration of CPG in rheumatology. Through an extensive review of the literature, this study compiles the main practical recommendations regarding the following steps of CPG drafting: distribution of working groups, development of the research question, search, identification and selection of relevant studies, evidence synthesis and quality assessment of the body of evidence, the Delphi methodology for consensus achievement, presentation and dissemination of the recommendations, CPG quality assessment and updating. This methodological guide serves as an important tool for rheumatologists to develop reliable and high-quality CPG, standardizing clinical practices worldwide.

Indexed as

RheumatologyBrazilConsensusHumansClinical practice guidelineMethodological guideRheumatology

Identifiers

PMID36922853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.