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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gillespie, Brigid M., Bull, Claudia, Walker, Rachel, Lin, Frances, Roberts, Shelley, Chaboyer, Wendy
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