ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. RESULTS: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline. CONCLUSION: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.