Cargando…
Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument
BACKGROUND: Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontli...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9485431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36273932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.008 |
_version_ | 1784792067781689344 |
---|---|
author | O'Shaughnessy, Sinead M. Dimagli, Arnaldo Kachulis, Bessie Rahouma, Mohamed Demetres, Michelle Govea, Nicolas Rong, Lisa Q. |
author_facet | O'Shaughnessy, Sinead M. Dimagli, Arnaldo Kachulis, Bessie Rahouma, Mohamed Demetres, Michelle Govea, Nicolas Rong, Lisa Q. |
author_sort | O'Shaughnessy, Sinead M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. METHODS: A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus. RESULTS: Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title (‘guideline’ vs ‘consensus statement’/ ‘recommendations’) did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9485431 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94854312022-09-21 Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument O'Shaughnessy, Sinead M. Dimagli, Arnaldo Kachulis, Bessie Rahouma, Mohamed Demetres, Michelle Govea, Nicolas Rong, Lisa Q. Br J Anaesth Clinical Practice BACKGROUND: Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. METHODS: A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus. RESULTS: Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title (‘guideline’ vs ‘consensus statement’/ ‘recommendations’) did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance. British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2022-12 2022-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9485431/ /pubmed/36273932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.008 Text en © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Practice O'Shaughnessy, Sinead M. Dimagli, Arnaldo Kachulis, Bessie Rahouma, Mohamed Demetres, Michelle Govea, Nicolas Rong, Lisa Q. Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title | Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title_full | Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title_short | Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument |
title_sort | evaluation of the quality of covid-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation ii instrument |
topic | Clinical Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9485431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36273932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.008 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oshaughnessysineadm evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT dimagliarnaldo evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT kachulisbessie evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT rahoumamohamed evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT demetresmichelle evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT goveanicolas evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument AT ronglisaq evaluationofthequalityofcovid19guidancedocumentsinanaesthesiausingtheappraisalofguidelinesforresearchandevaluationiiinstrument |