Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37883198›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2023

Assessing the quality and completeness of reporting in health systems guidance for pandemics using the AGREE-HS tool.

Luka Ursić, Marija F Žuljević, Miro Vuković, Nensi Bralić, Rea Roje, Jakov Matas, Antonija Mijatović, Damir Sapunar, Ana Marušić

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luka UrsićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Marija F ŽuljevićCenter for evidence-based medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Miro VukovićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Nensi BralićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Rea RojeScientific Department, University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia.
Jakov MatasDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Antonija MijatovićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Damir SapunarDepartment of Histology and Embryology, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
University of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During health emergencies, leading healthcare organisations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC), and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provide guidance for public health response. Previous studies have evaluated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) produced in response to epidemics or pandemics, yet few have focused on public health guidelines and recommendations. To address this gap, we assessed health systems guidance (HSG) produced by the WHO, the ECDC, and the CDC for the 2009 H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics. Methods: We extracted HSG for the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics from the organisations' dedicated repositories and websites. After screening the retrieved documents for eligibility, five assessors evaluated them using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation - Health Systems (AGREE-HS) tool to assess the completeness and transparency of reporting according to the five AGREE-HS domains: "Topic", "Participants", "Methods", "Recommendations", and "Implementability". Results: Following the screening process, we included 108 HSG in the analysis. We observed statistically significant differences between the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics, with HSG issued during COVID-19 receiving higher AGREE-HS scores. The HSG produced by the CDC had significantly lower overall scores and single-domain scores compared to the WHO and ECDC. However, all HSG scored relatively low, under the median of 40 total points (range = 10-70), indicating incomplete reporting. The HSG produced by all three organisations received a median score <4 (range = 1-7) for the "Participants", "Methods", and "Implementability" domains. Conclusions: There is still significant progress to be made in the quality and completeness of reporting in HSG issued during pandemics, especially regarding methodological approaches and the composition of the guidance development team. Due to their significant impact and importance for healthcare systems globally, HSG issued during future healthcare crises should adhere to best reporting practices to increase uptake by stakeholders and ensure public trust in healthcare organisations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Influenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeDelivery of Health CareHealth PromotionHumansPandemics

Identifiers

PMID37883198
PMCPMC10602204
OpenAlexW4387949160

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.