ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2023
A scoping review and critical evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines on nutrition in the preconception.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain recommendations for specific clinical circumstances, including maternal malnutrition. This study aimed to identify the CPGs that provide recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and treating women's malnutrition. Additionally, we sought to assess the methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Methods: An online search for CPGs was performed, looking for those that contained lifestyle and nutritional recommendations to prevent, diagnose and treat malnutrition in women during the preconception period using PubMed and different websites. The reviewers utilized the AGREE II instrument to appraise the quality of the CPGs. We defined high-quality guidelines with a final score of > 70%. Results: The titles and abstracts from 30 guidelines were screened for inclusion, of which 20 guidelines were fully reviewed for quality assessment. The overall quality assessment of CPGs was 73%, and only 55% reached a high-quality classification. The domains in the guidelines classified as high-quality had the highest scores in "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentation" with a median of 98.5 and 93%, respectively. Discussion: Further assessment is needed to improve the quality of the guidelines, which is an opportunity to strengthen them, especially in the domains with the lowest scores.
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.