Cargando…
Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in up to 10% of surgeries. Wound care practices to prevent infections are guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), yet their contribution to improving patient outcomes relies on their quality and adoption in practice. We critically evaluated the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30212487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203354 |
_version_ | 1783355054539931648 |
---|---|
author | Gillespie, Brigid M. Bull, Claudia Walker, Rachel Lin, Frances Roberts, Shelley Chaboyer, Wendy |
author_facet | Gillespie, Brigid M. Bull, Claudia Walker, Rachel Lin, Frances Roberts, Shelley Chaboyer, Wendy |
author_sort | Gillespie, Brigid M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in up to 10% of surgeries. Wound care practices to prevent infections are guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), yet their contribution to improving patient outcomes relies on their quality and adoption in practice. We critically evaluated the quality of CPGs for SSI prevention during pre-, intra- and post-operative phases of care. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature from 1990–2018 using the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest databases and five guidelines repositories. We extracted characteristics of each guideline using purposely-developed data collection tools. We assessed overall quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: Combined searches of databases and repositories yielded 5,910 citations. Of these, we reviewed 215 full text documents. The final sample included 15 documents: 6 complete CPGs, 3 CPG updates, and 6 supplementary documents. The overall %mean scores across AGREE II domains for CPGs were: 1) scope and purpose (%mean ± SD = 86.3±23.5); 2) stakeholder involvement (%mean ± SD = 64±31.0); 3) rigour of development (%mean ± SD = 68.7±30.6); 4) clarity and presentation (%mean ± SD = 88.5±16.7); 5) applicability (%mean ± SD = 44±30.2); and, 5) editorial independence (%mean ± SD = 61±37.6). Based on individual AGREE II domains and overall scores, we appraised 4 out of 6 CPGs (inclusive of updates) as “recommended” for use in practice. Overall agreement among appraisers was excellent (ICC 0.86 [95%CI 0.73–0.94] - 0.98 [95%CI 0.96–0.99]; p <0.001). DISCUSSION: International interest in CPG development has resulted in refinements to methodologies, which has led to improvements in the overall quality of the product. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION: Given the domains that received the lowest scores, it is clear that we need more consumer involvement and better consideration of the implementation challenges with CPG uptake and sustainability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6136720 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61367202018-09-27 Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review Gillespie, Brigid M. Bull, Claudia Walker, Rachel Lin, Frances Roberts, Shelley Chaboyer, Wendy PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in up to 10% of surgeries. Wound care practices to prevent infections are guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), yet their contribution to improving patient outcomes relies on their quality and adoption in practice. We critically evaluated the quality of CPGs for SSI prevention during pre-, intra- and post-operative phases of care. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature from 1990–2018 using the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest databases and five guidelines repositories. We extracted characteristics of each guideline using purposely-developed data collection tools. We assessed overall quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: Combined searches of databases and repositories yielded 5,910 citations. Of these, we reviewed 215 full text documents. The final sample included 15 documents: 6 complete CPGs, 3 CPG updates, and 6 supplementary documents. The overall %mean scores across AGREE II domains for CPGs were: 1) scope and purpose (%mean ± SD = 86.3±23.5); 2) stakeholder involvement (%mean ± SD = 64±31.0); 3) rigour of development (%mean ± SD = 68.7±30.6); 4) clarity and presentation (%mean ± SD = 88.5±16.7); 5) applicability (%mean ± SD = 44±30.2); and, 5) editorial independence (%mean ± SD = 61±37.6). Based on individual AGREE II domains and overall scores, we appraised 4 out of 6 CPGs (inclusive of updates) as “recommended” for use in practice. Overall agreement among appraisers was excellent (ICC 0.86 [95%CI 0.73–0.94] - 0.98 [95%CI 0.96–0.99]; p <0.001). DISCUSSION: International interest in CPG development has resulted in refinements to methodologies, which has led to improvements in the overall quality of the product. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION: Given the domains that received the lowest scores, it is clear that we need more consumer involvement and better consideration of the implementation challenges with CPG uptake and sustainability. Public Library of Science 2018-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6136720/ /pubmed/30212487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203354 Text en © 2018 Gillespie et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gillespie, Brigid M. Bull, Claudia Walker, Rachel Lin, Frances Roberts, Shelley Chaboyer, Wendy Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title | Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title_full | Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title_short | Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review |
title_sort | quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30212487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203354 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gillespiebrigidm qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview AT bullclaudia qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview AT walkerrachel qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview AT linfrances qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview AT robertsshelley qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview AT chaboyerwendy qualityappraisalofclinicalguidelinesforsurgicalsiteinfectionpreventionasystematicreview |