ArticlePloS one2025
Methodological characteristics of Peruvian clinical practice guidelines, 2018 - 2023: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) must be developed through a rigorous and transparent methodology to ensure the appropriateness and reliability of their recommendations. In Peru, little is known regarding how CPGs adhere to established methodological standards.
objectiveTo describe the methodological characteristics of CPGs developed and published in Peru between 2018 and 2023.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review and searched CPGs on Google, Google Scholar, and relevant local organizational websites. To be included, CPGs had to self-identify as such, have full-text versions available online, provide explicit methodological descriptions, and base their recommendations on systematic reviews, with publication dates between January 2018 and December 2023. We presented the results descriptively and analyzed the methodological differences among CPGs from different organizations using Fisher's exact tests.
resultsOut of 312 records assessed, 88 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. We found a declining publication trend over the study period: 39 CPGs were published in 2018-2019, 30 in 2020-2021, and 19 in 2022-2023. Most CPGs (60.2%) were developed by the Peruvian Social Security Health Insurance (EsSalud). Oncology was the most prevalent specialty of the CPGs (20.5%) and most CPGs (96.6%) included disease management. 23.7% of CPGs used ≥ 3 search engines, and 76.3% showed the risk of bias assessment. Although most CPGs indicated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology (94.3%), 30.7% missed Summary of Findings tables, 38.6% did not include Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, and only 5.7% used minimal important difference for at least one question. Additionally, economic analyses were infrequently sought or included.
conclusionsThis study highlights significant methodological deficiencies in Peruvian CPGs, including inadequate reporting of search strategies, bias assessments, and key GRADE components. Addressing these shortcomings is crucial for enhancing the quality and reliability of CPGs and promoting equitable healthcare delivery in Peru.
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.