Cargando…

Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines aim to support clinicians in providing clinical care and should be supported by evidence. There is currently no information on whether clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are supported by evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leung, Jeffrey, Leong, Jonathan, Au Yeung, Kenneth, Hao, Bo Zhen, McCluskey, Aled, Kayani, Yusuf, Davidson, Brian R., Gurusamy, Kurinchi S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34519972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01168-3
_version_ 1784684278160818176
author Leung, Jeffrey
Leong, Jonathan
Au Yeung, Kenneth
Hao, Bo Zhen
McCluskey, Aled
Kayani, Yusuf
Davidson, Brian R.
Gurusamy, Kurinchi S.
author_facet Leung, Jeffrey
Leong, Jonathan
Au Yeung, Kenneth
Hao, Bo Zhen
McCluskey, Aled
Kayani, Yusuf
Davidson, Brian R.
Gurusamy, Kurinchi S.
author_sort Leung, Jeffrey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines aim to support clinicians in providing clinical care and should be supported by evidence. There is currently no information on whether clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are supported by evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and identified clinical practice guidelines of laparoscopic surgery published in PubMed and Embase between March 2016 and February 2019. We performed an independent assessment of the strength of recommendation based on the evidence provided by the guideline authors. We used the ‘Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II’ (AGREE-II) Tool’s ‘rigour of development’, ‘clarity of presentation’, and ‘editorial independence’ domains to assess the quality of the guidelines. We performed a mixed-effects generalised linear regression modelling. RESULTS: We retrieved 63 guidelines containing 1905 guideline statements. The median proportion of ‘difference in rating’ of strength of recommendation between the guideline authors and independent assessment was 33.3% (quartiles: 18.3%, 55.8%). The ‘rigour of development’ domain score (odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.01–0.48 per unit increase in rigour score; P value = 0.0071) and whether the strength of recommendation was ‘strong’ by independent evaluation (odds ratio 0.09 (95% confidence intervals 0.06–0.13; P value < 0.001) were the only determinants of difference in rating between the guideline authors and independent evaluation. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of guideline statements in clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are not supported by evidence. Guideline authors systematically overrated the strength of the recommendation (i.e., even when the evidence points to weak recommendation, guideline authors made strong recommendations). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13304-021-01168-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8995291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89952912022-04-27 Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery Leung, Jeffrey Leong, Jonathan Au Yeung, Kenneth Hao, Bo Zhen McCluskey, Aled Kayani, Yusuf Davidson, Brian R. Gurusamy, Kurinchi S. Updates Surg Review Article BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines aim to support clinicians in providing clinical care and should be supported by evidence. There is currently no information on whether clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are supported by evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and identified clinical practice guidelines of laparoscopic surgery published in PubMed and Embase between March 2016 and February 2019. We performed an independent assessment of the strength of recommendation based on the evidence provided by the guideline authors. We used the ‘Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II’ (AGREE-II) Tool’s ‘rigour of development’, ‘clarity of presentation’, and ‘editorial independence’ domains to assess the quality of the guidelines. We performed a mixed-effects generalised linear regression modelling. RESULTS: We retrieved 63 guidelines containing 1905 guideline statements. The median proportion of ‘difference in rating’ of strength of recommendation between the guideline authors and independent assessment was 33.3% (quartiles: 18.3%, 55.8%). The ‘rigour of development’ domain score (odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.01–0.48 per unit increase in rigour score; P value = 0.0071) and whether the strength of recommendation was ‘strong’ by independent evaluation (odds ratio 0.09 (95% confidence intervals 0.06–0.13; P value < 0.001) were the only determinants of difference in rating between the guideline authors and independent evaluation. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of guideline statements in clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are not supported by evidence. Guideline authors systematically overrated the strength of the recommendation (i.e., even when the evidence points to weak recommendation, guideline authors made strong recommendations). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13304-021-01168-3. Springer International Publishing 2021-09-14 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8995291/ /pubmed/34519972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01168-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Leung, Jeffrey
Leong, Jonathan
Au Yeung, Kenneth
Hao, Bo Zhen
McCluskey, Aled
Kayani, Yusuf
Davidson, Brian R.
Gurusamy, Kurinchi S.
Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title_full Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title_fullStr Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title_full_unstemmed Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title_short Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
title_sort can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34519972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01168-3
work_keys_str_mv AT leungjeffrey canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT leongjonathan canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT auyeungkenneth canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT haobozhen canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT mccluskeyaled canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT kayaniyusuf canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT davidsonbrianr canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery
AT gurusamykurinchis canyoutrustclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgeryasystematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforlaparoscopicsurgery