ArticleClinical kidney journal2026
A critical appraisal of guidelines and recommendations for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2026. 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
Objectives: We aimed to appraise 11 currently available guidelines for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), identify potential gaps, and provide recommendations for improvement. Methods: The guidelines were appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument consisting of 23 appraisal criteria/items across six domains (D). Four reviewers independently appraised guidelines and scaled domain scores were calculated. Results: The average score of all guidelines was 4.5 ± 0.8 out of 7.0. Agreement between the reviewers was excellent. British Society for Rheumatology 2025 guidelines scored highest (5.8/7.0), being the only guideline unanimously recommended for use. In 'D1/Scope and purpose', all guidelines achieved high scores. In 'D2/Stakeholder involvement', major gaps were identified in the inclusion of the views and preferences of the target population (2c), with few guidelines including patient representatives, addressing patient participation, or considering patient views. In 'D3/Rigour of development', all but two guidelines received high scores. Implementation of the procedure for updating the guidelines (3 h) and for external review (3 g) was addressed poorly. In 'D4/Clarity of presentation', all guidelines except one received a high score. 'D5/Applicability' had the lowest scores due to gaps in the criteria for monitoring/auditing guideline implementation (5d), resource/cost implications (5c), lack of advice/tools for implementation (5a), and inadequate addressing of facilitators/barriers in guideline application (5a). 'D6/Editorial independence' was addressed well. Conclusions: Several aspects of AAV guidelines could be improved, including the inclusion of patient views and preferences, the processes for translating guidelines into clinical practice, and clearer criteria for monitoring guideline implementation and uptake.
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.