ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia , COVID-19 , Humans , ConsensusABSTRACT
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. 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. 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. 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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immigrants in the United States (US) today are facing a dynamic policy landscape. The Trump administration has threatened or curtailed access to basic services for 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. We sought to examine the historical effects that punitive laws have had on health outcomes in US immigrant communities. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched the following databases from inception-May 2020 for original research articles with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019138817. Articles with cohort sizes >10 that directly evaluated the health-related effects of a punitive immigrant law or policy within the US were included. FINDINGS: 6,357 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 32 studies were selected for inclusion and qualitatively synthesized based upon four themes that appeared throughout our analysis: (1) impact on healthcare utilization, (2) impact on women's and children's health, (3) impact on mental health services, and (4) impact on public health. The impact of each law, policy, mandate, and directive since 1990 is briefly discussed, as are the limitations and risk of bias of each study. INTERPRETATION: Many punitive immigrant policies have decreased immigrant access to and utilization of basic healthcare services, while instilling fear, confusion, and anxiety in these communities. The federal government should preserve and expand access for undocumented individuals without threat of deportation to improve health outcomes for US citizens and noncitizens.