Quality appraisal of antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines to prevent infective endocarditis following dental procedures: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis in indicated dental procedures. STUDY DESIGN: We searched on Medline/OVID, CINAHL/EBSCO, and EMBASE from January 2011 to January 2022. We included de novo guidelines and excluded adapted or adopted guidelines, and guidelines published before 2011. The guidelines were independently appraised by 4 reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument. RESULTS: Four eligible CPGs were appraised: the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Japanese Circulation Society (JCS). Their AGREE II first overall assessments (OA1) were 63%, 58%, 92%, and 71%, respectively. Both NICE and JCS scored the highest in OA1 (>70%), Domain 3 Rigor of Development (85%, 65%), and Domain 5 Applicability (76%, 48%), respectively. The second overall assessment (OA2) of using the CPGs in daily practice was not significantly variable (recommended for use with modifications). CONCLUSION: Three out of 4 CPGs support that the benefits of prevention of infective endocarditis outweigh the risks of antibiotic resistance.

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.