Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984828›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2025

Quality of guidelines for infection management in sepsis: a critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.

Guo-Xun Yang, Ting Que, Yi-Fei Wang, Xiao-Bo Liu, Shu-Qian Dou, Shi-Ling Pu, Xin Wang, Kong-Jia Wu, Yuan Wang, Qi Wang and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors.

Guo-Xun YangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.ORCID 0009-0004-1624-7240
Ting Que *The First Affiliated Hospital of Dali University, Dali, Yunnan, 671000, China.
Yi-Fei Wang *The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Xiao-Bo Liu *The First Affiliated Hospital of Dali University, Dali, Yunnan, 671000, China.
Shu-Qian DouThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Shi-Ling PuThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Xin WangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Kong-Jia WuThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Yuan WangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Qi WangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
Wen-Jun LiuThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China. liuwenjun@kmmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82060349Yunnan Revitalization Talent Support Program RSC2019MY018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically assess the methodological quality of current sepsis infection management guidelines and identify gaps in knowledge that limit evidence-based practice.

methodsA systematic search was conducted to obtain guidelines for the management of sepsis infections (2012-2021), and three reviewers independently assessed the quality of eligible guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement between reviewers. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to analyze the strength of recommendation and level of evidence of the guideline, and the number of recommendations, strength of recommendation, and level of evidence were determined.

resultsEleven guidelines for the management of sepsis infection were identified. An overall high agreement among the evaluators for each domain was observed (ICC ranged from 0.850 to 0.959). The overall scores of the included guidelines were all over 60% (range, 62.3-89.90%), which were worthy of recommendation for clinical use; among them, 4 guidelines had an overall score of over 80%, which were high-quality guideline articles. In terms of the quality domains of the guidelines, the scope and purpose domain and the clarity of expression domain had the highest average scores, which were 93.6% (range, 79.6-98.1%) and 91.4% (range, 64.8-98.1%), respectively, while the applicability domain had the lowest average score, which was 64.8% (range, 51.4-76.4%). The strength of the recommendations of the guideline recommendations was mainly weak, accounting for 73.4%; the level of evidence cited was mainly very low quality (60.2%) and low quality (28.1%).

conclusionsThe quality of sepsis infection management guidelines varies, but the overall quality level is satisfactory. Improving the low-quality areas of sepsis guidelines, attempting to resolve existing problems and controversies, and improving the quality of research evidence will be effective ways for developers to upgrade sepsis guidelines.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicSepsisEvidence-Based MedicineHumansAGREE IIGuidelinesInfection managementQuality assessmentSepsis

Identifiers

PMID39984828
PMCPMC11846407

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.