Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhao S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9629660 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review.
Zhao Siya S Lu Shuya S Wu Shouyuan S Wang Zijun Z Guo Qiangqiang Q Shi Qianling Q Zhang Hairong H Zhang Juanjuan J Liu Hui H Liu Yunlan Y Zhang Xianzhuo X Wang Ling L Ren Mengjuan M Wang Ping P Lan Hui H Zhou Qi Q Sun Yajia Y Cao Jin J Li Qinyuan Q Estill Janne J Mathew Joseph L JL Ahn Hyeong Sik HS Lee Myeong Soo MS Wang Xiaohui X Zhou Chenyan C Chen Yaolong Y
Health data science 20210722
<h4>Background</h4>Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting public health crises. Antimicrobial overuse in patients with COVID-19 threatens to worsen AMR. Guidelines are fundamental in encouraging antimicrobial stewardship. We sought to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19, and whether they incorporate principles of antimicrobial stewardship.MethodsWe performed a systematic survey which included a search using the concepts "antibiotic/antimicrobial" up to November 15, 2022 of the eCOVID-19 living map of recommendations (RecMap) which aggregates guidelines across a range of international sources and all languages. Guidelines providing explicit recommendations regarding antibacterial use in COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Guideline and recommendation quality were assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We extracted guideline characteristics including panel representation and the presence or absence of explicit statements related to antimicrobial stewardship (i.e., judicious antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance or adverse effects as a consequence of antibiotic use). We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between guideline characteristics including quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. Protocol registration (OSF): https://osf.io/4pgtc.FindingsTwenty-eight guidelines with 63 antibiotic prescribing recommendations were included. Recommendations focused on antibiotic initiation (n = 52, 83%) and less commonly antibiotic selection (n = 13, 21%), and duration of therapy (n = 15, 24%). Guideline and recommendation quality varied widely. Twenty (71%) guidelines incorporated at least one concept relating to antimicrobial stewardship. Including infectious diseases expertise on the guideline panel (OR 9.44, 97.5% CI: 1.09-81.59) and AGREE-REX score (OR 3.26, 97.5% CI: 1.14-9.31 per 10% increase in overall score) were associated with a higher odds of guidelines addressing antimicrobial stewardship.InterpretationThere is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing guidelines in terms of both quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. These findings can help guideline developers better address antibiotic stewardship in future recommendations beyond COVID-19.FundingThis project was funded by Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE centres.
| S-EPMC10568086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Current recommendations for vitamin D and calcium in dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines vary significantly among countries and professional organisations. It is unknown whether the methods used to develop these recommendations followed a rigourous process and how the differences in methods used may affect the recommended intakes of vitamin D and calcium. The objectives of this study are (1) collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across guidelines, (2) appraise methodological quality of the guideline recommendations and (3) identify methodological factors that may affect the recommended intakes for vitamin D and calcium. This study will make a significant contribution to enhancing the methodological rigour in public health guidelines for vitamin D and calcium recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSES:We will conduct a systematic review to evaluate vitamin D and calcium recommendations for osteoporosis prevention in generally healthy middle-aged and older adults. Methodological assessment will be performed for each guideline against those outlined in the 2014 WHO handbook for guideline development. A systematic search strategy will be applied to locate food-based dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines indexed in various electronic databases, guideline repositories and grey literature from 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2019. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data on intake recommendation and on proportion of guidelines consistent with the WHO criteria. Logistic regression, if feasible, will be used to assess the relationships between the methodological factors and the recommendation intakes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is not required as we will only extract published data or information from the published guidelines. Results of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019126452.
| S-EPMC6858133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the search for ways in which to provide the best available care have created unprecedented times in terms of rapidly evolving reports of available treatment options. The primary objective of our analysis was to categorize online, open-source guidance to determine how US institutions approached their recommendations for management of patients with COVID-19 in the early weeks of the pandemic.MethodsA search for open-source, online institutional guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 was conducted using predefined criteria. The search was limited to the United States and conducted from April 12 through 14, 2020, and again on April 22, 2020. Searches were conducted at 2 points in time in order to identify changes in treatment recommendations due to evolving literature or institutional experience. Treatment recommendations, including guidance on antiviral therapy, corticosteroid and interleukin-6 inhibitor use, and nutritional supplementation were compared.ResultsOf the 105 institutions that met initial screening criteria, 14 institutions (13.3%) had online COVID-19 guidance available. Supportive care and clinical trial enrollment were the primary recommendations in all evaluated guidance. Recommendations to consider antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy varied. Eighty-six percent of guidelines contained recommendations for use, or consideration of use, of hydroxychloroquine. Guidance from 2 institutions mentioned use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in combination. Of the 13 institutions listing hydroxychloroquine dosing recommendations, 62% recommended maintenance dosing of 200 mg twice daily. Infectious diseases or other specialty consultation was required by 89% of institutions using interleukin-6 inhibitors for COVID-19 management.ConclusionOverall, the analysis revealed variability in treatment or supplemental pharmacologic therapy for the management of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7454286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSimulation study results suggest that COVID-19 contact tracing apps have the potential to achieve pandemic control. Concordantly, high app adoption rates were a stipulated prerequisite for success. Early studies on potential adoption were encouraging. Several factors predicting adoption rates were investigated, especially pertaining to user characteristics. Since then, several countries have released COVID-19 contact tracing apps.ObjectiveThis study's primary aim is to investigate the quality characteristics of national European COVID-19 contact tracing apps, thereby shifting attention from user to app characteristics. The secondary aim is to investigate associations between app quality and adoption. Finally, app features contributing to higher app quality were identified.MethodsEligible COVID-19 contact tracing apps were those released by national health authorities of European Union member states, former member states, and countries of the European Free Trade Association, all countries with comparable legal standards concerning personal data protection and app use voluntariness. The Mobile App Rating Scale was used to assess app quality. An interdisciplinary team, consisting of two health and two human-computer interaction scientists, independently conducted Mobile App Rating Scale ratings. To investigate associations between app quality and adoption rates and infection rates, Bayesian linear regression analyses were conducted.ResultsWe discovered 21 national COVID-19 contact tracing apps, all demonstrating high quality overall and high-level functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. However, the average app adoption rate of 22.9% (SD 12.5%) was below the level recommended by simulation studies. Lower levels of engagement-oriented app design were detected, with substantial variations between apps. By regression analyses, the best-case adoption rate was calculated by assuming apps achieve the highest ratings. The mean best-case adoption rates for engagement and overall app quality were 39.5% and 43.6%, respectively. Higher adoption rates were associated with lower cumulative infection rates. Overall, we identified 5 feature categories (symptom assessment and monitoring, regularly updated information, individualization, tracing, and communication) and 14 individual features that contributed to higher app quality. These 14 features were a symptom checker, a symptom diary, statistics on COVID-19, app use, public health instructions and restrictions, information of burden on health care system, assigning personal data, regional updates, control over tracing activity, contact diary, venue check-in, chats, helplines, and app-sharing capacity.ConclusionsEuropean national health authorities have generally released high quality COVID-19 contact tracing apps, with regard to functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. However, the app's engagement-oriented design generally was of lower quality, even though regression analyses results identify engagement as a promising optimization target to increase adoption rates. Associations between higher app adoption and lower infection rates are consistent with simulation study results, albeit acknowledging that app use might be part of a broader set of protective attitudes and behaviors for self and others. Various features were identified that could guide further engagement-enhancing app development.
| S-EPMC8174558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNational dementia guidelines provide recommendations about the most effective approaches to diagnosis and interventions. Guidelines can improve care, but some groups such as people with minority characteristics may be disadvantaged if recommended approaches are the same for everyone. It is not known if dementia guidelines address specific needs related to patient characteristics. The objectives of this review are to identify which countries have national guidelines for dementia and synthesise recommendations relating to protected characteristics, as defined in the UK Equality Act 2010: age, disability, gender identity, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.Methods and findingsWe searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Medline databases and the Guideline International Network library from inception to March 4, 2020, for dementia guidelines in any language. We also searched, between April and September 2020, Google and the national health websites of all 196 countries in English and in each country's official languages. To be included, guidelines had to provide recommendations about dementia, which were expected to be followed by healthcare workers and be approved at a national policy level. We rated quality according to the iCAHE guideline quality checklist. We provide a narrative synthesis of recommendations identified for each protected characteristic, prioritising those from higher-quality guidelines. Forty-six guidelines from 44 countries met our criteria, of which 18 were rated as higher quality. Most guidelines (39/46; 85%) made at least one reference to protected characteristics, and we identified recommendations relating to age, disability, race (or culture, ethnicity, or language), religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Age was the most frequently referenced characteristic (31/46; 67%) followed by race (or culture, ethnicity, or language; 25/46; 54%). Recommendations included specialist investigation and support for younger people affected by dementia and consideration of culture when assessing whether someone had dementia and providing person-centred care. Guidelines recommended considering religion when providing person-centred and end-of-life care. For disability, it was recommended that healthcare workers consider intellectual disability and sensory impairment when assessing for dementia. Most recommendations related to sex recommended not using sex hormones to treat cognitive impairment in men and women. One guideline made one recommendation related to sexual orientation. The main limitation of this study is that we only included national guidelines applicable to a whole country meaning guidelines from countries with differing healthcare systems within the country may have been excluded.ConclusionsNational guidelines for dementia vary in their consideration of protected characteristics. We found that around a fifth of the world's countries have guidelines for dementia. We have identified areas of good practice that can be considered for future guidelines and suggest that all guidelines provide specific evidence-based recommendations for minority groups with examples of how to implement them. This will promote equity in the care of people affected by dementia and help to ensure that people with protected characteristics also have high-quality clinical services.
| S-EPMC8752020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.
| S-EPMC8248791 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10914286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Depression affects over 300 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for most of the 800,000 annual suicides. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treatment of depression, founded on scientific evidence, are essential to improve patient care. However, economic and sociocultural factors may influence CPG elaboration, potentially leading to divergences in their recommendations. Consequently, we analyzed pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of depression from the most relevant CPGs. We included four CPGs with scores ≥ 80% for Domain 3 (rigor of development) on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation and two other commonly used CPGs. The recommendations, their strengths, and the level of evidence were extracted from each CPG by two independent researchers and grouped as follows: (1) general recommendations for the pharmacological treatment for depression (suicide risk, acute treatment, continuation and maintenance phases, and treatment discontinuation); (2) treatment of non-responsive or partially responsive patients; and (3) treatment for subtypes of depression (chronic, psychotic, catatonic, melancholic, seasonal, somatic, mixed, and atypical). Only 50% of CPGs included recommendations for the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. All CPGs included serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatment; however, one CPG also included agomelatine, milnacipran, and mianserin as first-line alternatives. Recommendations for depression subtypes (catatonic, atypical, melancholic) were included in three CPGs. The strength of recommendation and level of evidence clearly differed among CPGs, especially regarding treatment augmentation strategies. We conclude that, although CPGs converged in some recommendations (e.g., SSRIs as first-line treatment), they diverged in cardinal topics including the absence of recommendations regarding the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. Consequently, the recommendations listed in a specific CPG should be followed with caution.
| S-EPMC7173786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ScopeThe Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.Questions addressed by the guideline and recommendationsWe assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7527308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A life-threatening respiratory illness (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 coronavirus was first described in December 2019 in Wuhan (China), rapidly evolving into a pandemic. In the first phase, when the viral replication plays a pivotal pathogenetic role, antiviral drugs could be crucial in limiting viral-induced organ damage. Unfortunately, there are no specific antivirals of proven efficacy for COVID-19, and several drugs have been repurposed to face this dramatic pandemic. In this paper we review the studies evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir association (LPV/r) use in COVID-19, and previously in SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We searched PubMed to identify all relevant clinical and laboratory studies published up to 15 May 2020; the guidelines on the use of LPV/r in COVID-19 were further directly searched on the website of the main international scientific societies and agencies. Available evidence is currently scarce and of low quality. The recommendations issued for COVID-19 vary from positions clearly against the use of LPV/r to other positions that are more favorable. In our opinion, despite the controversial results of an important randomized clinical trial, and some recommendations, clinicians should not abandon the use of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19, possibly using this drug inside a prospective randomized trial, waiting for the results of the numerous ongoing trials evaluating its efficacy.
| S-EPMC7408758 | biostudies-literature