ArticleHeliyon2024
Quality evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for placenta accreta spectrum disorders.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We evaluated the quality of the published clinical practice guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders to provide reference for the development of high-quality PAS guidelines. Methods: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Quality assessments were conducted using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II framework and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement among reviewers. Results: In total, 13 guidelines from different countries, published between 2015 and 2021 were included. There included 9 official guidelines, 3 consensuses, and 1 standard reference and covered subjects including epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. The mean standardized scores across 6 domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence) were 53.63%, 27.35%, 33.57%, 72.01%, 19.39% and 41.02%, respectively. Of the 13 guidelines, 11 were classified as grade B, whereas 2 as grade C. According to the RIGHT checklist, the overall reporting rate of the 13 guidelines ranged from 28.57% to 54.29%. Conclusion: The current guidelines for PAS demonstrate commendable methodological and reporting qualities. However, the methodological and reporting quality of PAS CPGs still need to be further improved, particularly in stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains.
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.