Cargando…
Evaluation of the current guidelines for the management of haemorrhoidal disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoids are a very common disease and many professional societies have produced guidelines for their treatment. The aim of this study is to appraise the quality of the existing guidelines in the management of haemorrhoids. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10113081/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37082684 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-4255 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoids are a very common disease and many professional societies have produced guidelines for their treatment. The aim of this study is to appraise the quality of the existing guidelines in the management of haemorrhoids. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and PubMed databases. The quality of guidelines was independently appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument by five of the authors. RESULTS: Six guidelines of varying quality were identified and included in this study. The highest scoring guidelines were the SICCR (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colorectale, which is Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery), ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) and ASCRS (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons) guidelines, scoring 86% each overall. There was considerable variability across not just the studies but across the different domains. The highest scoring domains were domain VI: editorial independence (median =95% across all studies) and domain I: Scope & Purpose (85%). The lowest scores were observed in domain V: Applicability (48%) and domain II: Stakeholder Involvement (41%). Only three of the six gained unanimous support for their use, whilst two of the guidelines were unanimously declared not suitable for clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: With the notable exception of three guidelines (SICCR, ESCP and ASCRS), the general quality of haemorrhoid guidelines is poor. Stakeholder (especially patient) involvement and instructions on how to implement recommendations is lacking from the majority of guidelines. This is an area that requires urgent attention if we are to improve guidelines in haemorrhoid management. |
---|