Cargando…

Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II

To systematically evaluate the guidelines for endometriosis published in the past decade, and to provide reference for the selection of guidelines for endometriosis through quality evaluation and comparison. METHODS: PubMed database, Embase database, evidence-based medicine clinical practice guideli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lei, Yan, Du, Xin, Chen, Dejun, Gao, Yue, Lian, Hongmei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9622654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36316857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031331
_version_ 1784821820982034432
author Lei, Yan
Du, Xin
Chen, Dejun
Gao, Yue
Lian, Hongmei
author_facet Lei, Yan
Du, Xin
Chen, Dejun
Gao, Yue
Lian, Hongmei
author_sort Lei, Yan
collection PubMed
description To systematically evaluate the guidelines for endometriosis published in the past decade, and to provide reference for the selection of guidelines for endometriosis through quality evaluation and comparison. METHODS: PubMed database, Embase database, evidence-based medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPG) database and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom were searched by computer from December 2012 to December 2020 to retrieve published endometriosis CPG published by professional institutions or organizations. The search languages are English and Portuguese. Two researchers evaluated the quality of included CPG according to appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II). The evaluation includes 6 areas: scope and purpose, participants, rigor of formulation, clarity of expression, applicability and independence. The recommendation level of CPG is determined by the distribution of standardized scores in the above 6 areas. RESULTS: A total of 8 articles on endometriosis CPG were included, including 5 guidelines and 3 consensuses, covering 5 countries in 2 continents; the publication year was 2013 to 2020. The average standardized scores of the scope and purpose, participants, rigor, clarity, applicability and independence of CPG were 77.1%, 52.8%, 50.5%, 86.8%, 31.3%, and 36.5%, respectively. Among the 8 CPGs, 1 was grade A (recommended), 5 were grade B (recommended after improvement), and 2 were grade C (not recommended). Seven CPG recommendations were based on expert consensus, and one was developed through detailed literature retrieval, analysis and evidence rating evaluation. There was little difference between the guidelines in terms of treatment-related recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of endometriosis CPG released in 2013 to 2020 is quite different, and some CPGs are not ideal in terms of rigor, applicability and independence. The guidelines issued by NICE in 2017 are A-grade recommendations. The standardized scores in various fields are high, and the formation process of CPG is the most standardized, which is worth learning and reference.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9622654
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96226542022-11-03 Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II Lei, Yan Du, Xin Chen, Dejun Gao, Yue Lian, Hongmei Medicine (Baltimore) 7400 To systematically evaluate the guidelines for endometriosis published in the past decade, and to provide reference for the selection of guidelines for endometriosis through quality evaluation and comparison. METHODS: PubMed database, Embase database, evidence-based medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPG) database and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom were searched by computer from December 2012 to December 2020 to retrieve published endometriosis CPG published by professional institutions or organizations. The search languages are English and Portuguese. Two researchers evaluated the quality of included CPG according to appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II). The evaluation includes 6 areas: scope and purpose, participants, rigor of formulation, clarity of expression, applicability and independence. The recommendation level of CPG is determined by the distribution of standardized scores in the above 6 areas. RESULTS: A total of 8 articles on endometriosis CPG were included, including 5 guidelines and 3 consensuses, covering 5 countries in 2 continents; the publication year was 2013 to 2020. The average standardized scores of the scope and purpose, participants, rigor, clarity, applicability and independence of CPG were 77.1%, 52.8%, 50.5%, 86.8%, 31.3%, and 36.5%, respectively. Among the 8 CPGs, 1 was grade A (recommended), 5 were grade B (recommended after improvement), and 2 were grade C (not recommended). Seven CPG recommendations were based on expert consensus, and one was developed through detailed literature retrieval, analysis and evidence rating evaluation. There was little difference between the guidelines in terms of treatment-related recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of endometriosis CPG released in 2013 to 2020 is quite different, and some CPGs are not ideal in terms of rigor, applicability and independence. The guidelines issued by NICE in 2017 are A-grade recommendations. The standardized scores in various fields are high, and the formation process of CPG is the most standardized, which is worth learning and reference. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9622654/ /pubmed/36316857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031331 Text en Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle 7400
Lei, Yan
Du, Xin
Chen, Dejun
Gao, Yue
Lian, Hongmei
Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title_full Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title_fullStr Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title_full_unstemmed Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title_short Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II
title_sort quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using agree ii
topic 7400
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9622654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36316857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031331
work_keys_str_mv AT leiyan qualityevaluationofendometriosisguidelinesusingagreeii
AT duxin qualityevaluationofendometriosisguidelinesusingagreeii
AT chendejun qualityevaluationofendometriosisguidelinesusingagreeii
AT gaoyue qualityevaluationofendometriosisguidelinesusingagreeii
AT lianhongmei qualityevaluationofendometriosisguidelinesusingagreeii