ArticleHealth science reports2023
Methodological quality and recommendations of hemophilia clinical practice guidelines: A scoping review.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for newborns in China: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Methodological quality and recommendations of hemophilia clinical practice guidelines: A scoping review.Health science reports · 2023Article
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
Background and Aims: Hemophilia clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a vital role in guiding healthcare professionals' decisions. However, the quality and recommendations of CPGs for hemophilia may vary. This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of hemophilia CPGs published between 2017 and 2021 and compare their recommendations for prophylaxis using clotting factor concentrate. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search for relevant CPGs in PubMed, TripDatabase, Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) International Guidelines Database, Google Scholar, and Google. We used the AGREE-II instrument to assess the methodological quality of each CPG and compared their recommendations for prophylaxis. Results: Of the 11 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, 5/11 were developed in upper-middle-income countries, and 6/11 used the GRADE methodology. The primary prophylaxis dose recommendations varied among the CPGs, with 4/11 recommending a low dose, 6/11 recommending an intermediate or high dose, and 1/11 not issuing a recommendation. However, only 2/11 CPGs provided justification for their recommendations on initiation and dose, and no economic evaluations were conducted to support these recommendations. Conclusion: The quality of hemophilia CPGs is not optimal, with inconsistent recommendations for prophylaxis and a lack of justification for these recommendations. To ensure evidence-based and trustworthy recommendations, there is a need for transparency and improvement in the decision-making process of hemophilia CPGs.
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.