2024-03-28T09:01:12Zhttp://repisalud.isciii.es/oai/requestoai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/151322022-11-16T02:00:54Zcom_20.500.12105_15322com_20.500.12105_2051com_20.500.12105_2081com_20.500.12105_2052col_20.500.12105_16972col_20.500.12105_2082
00925njm 22002777a 4500
dc
Dewidar, Omar
author
Lotfi, Tamara
author
Langendam, Miranda
author
Parmelli, Elena
author
Saz-Parkinson, ZuleiKa
author
Solo, Karla
author
Chu, Derek K
author
Mathew, Joseph L
author
Akl, Elie A
author
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
author
Mustafa, Reem A
author
Moja, Lorenzo
author
Iorio, Alfonso
author
Chi, Yuan
author
Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
author
Kredo, Tamara
author
Karpusheff, Justine
author
Turgeon, Alexis F
author
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
author
Wiercioch, Wojtek
author
Gerritsen, Annette
author
Klugar, Miloslav
author
Rojas, María Ximena
author
Tugwell, Peter
author
Welch, Vivian Andrea
author
Pottie, Kevin
author
Munn, Zachary
author
Nieuwlaat, Robby
author
Ford, Nathan
author
Stevens, Adrienne
author
Khabsa, Joanne
author
Nasir, Zil
author
Leontiadis, Grigorios I
author
Meerpohl, Joerg J
author
Piggott, Thomas
author
Qaseem, Amir
author
Matthews, Micayla
author
Schünemann, Holger J
author
eCOVID-19 recommendations map collaborators
author
2022-04-15
Objectives: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. Design and setting: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. Main outcome measures: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. Conclusions: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022 Apr 15;bmjebm-2021-111866.
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/15132
35428695
10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866
2515-4478
BMJ evidence-based medicine
COVID-19
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Services Research
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.