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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |