Cargando…

Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Mengxing, Zhou, Yingfeng, Zhong, Jie, Wang, Kairong, Ding, Yan, Li, Li, Pan, Xiuhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6896264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8
_version_ 1783476740627103744
author Zhang, Mengxing
Zhou, Yingfeng
Zhong, Jie
Wang, Kairong
Ding, Yan
Li, Li
Pan, Xiuhong
author_facet Zhang, Mengxing
Zhou, Yingfeng
Zhong, Jie
Wang, Kairong
Ding, Yan
Li, Li
Pan, Xiuhong
author_sort Zhang, Mengxing
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the last decade using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: A systematic search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Medlive, American Diabetes Association, Canadian Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, as well as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database was conducted from inception to June 2018. The quality was assessed by four trained researchers independently, using the AGREE IIinstrument. RESULTS: A total of 13 guidelines, published from 2009 to 2018, were finally included. Among them, 11 guidelines were evidence-based guidelines, and 2 were expert consensus. Scores for each of the six AGREE II domains(Median ± IQR) were 94 ± 11, 89 ± 53, 58 ± 37, 100 ± 6, 79 ± 48, 100 ± 71 and 67% ± 42%, and guidelines based on expert consensus generally scored lower than evidence-based guidelines (Z = -2.201, p = 0.028). Overall score of 10 guidelines were 5 points and above, and four guidelines were 7 points. Among six domains, two domains: Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation, had high scores; however, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence received lower scores. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. However, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating timely is needed. In some regions, more attention for guideline adaptation is recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6896264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68962642019-12-11 Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review Zhang, Mengxing Zhou, Yingfeng Zhong, Jie Wang, Kairong Ding, Yan Li, Li Pan, Xiuhong BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the last decade using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: A systematic search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Medlive, American Diabetes Association, Canadian Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, as well as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database was conducted from inception to June 2018. The quality was assessed by four trained researchers independently, using the AGREE IIinstrument. RESULTS: A total of 13 guidelines, published from 2009 to 2018, were finally included. Among them, 11 guidelines were evidence-based guidelines, and 2 were expert consensus. Scores for each of the six AGREE II domains(Median ± IQR) were 94 ± 11, 89 ± 53, 58 ± 37, 100 ± 6, 79 ± 48, 100 ± 71 and 67% ± 42%, and guidelines based on expert consensus generally scored lower than evidence-based guidelines (Z = -2.201, p = 0.028). Overall score of 10 guidelines were 5 points and above, and four guidelines were 7 points. Among six domains, two domains: Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation, had high scores; however, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence received lower scores. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. However, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating timely is needed. In some regions, more attention for guideline adaptation is recommended. BioMed Central 2019-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6896264/ /pubmed/31805878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhang, Mengxing
Zhou, Yingfeng
Zhong, Jie
Wang, Kairong
Ding, Yan
Li, Li
Pan, Xiuhong
Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title_full Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title_fullStr Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title_short Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
title_sort quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with agree ii: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6896264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangmengxing qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT zhouyingfeng qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT zhongjie qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT wangkairong qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT dingyan qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT lili qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview
AT panxiuhong qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview