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
Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly important to guide clinical care. However, they can vary widely in quality, and many recommendations are based on low-level evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for new flexible formats for rigorously developed guidelines. Future guideline development should be standardised, graded, registered, and updated to ensure that they are 'living' works in progress.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & controlABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic and the decision-making process of whether to perform urgent procedures during a surge are issues that will likely not disappear in the near future as reflected by the current rise in COVID cases in the southern and western United States and the resurgent numbers of confirmed cases around that world leading to are leading to new lock-downs. Multi-disciplinary discussions will continue to be important to decide individual risk and benefit profiles for patients with asymptomatic COVID patients moving forward. While imperfect, this most recent study provides more insight to some of the risks that should be weighed in these discussions. Further prospective, longitudinal research and better understanding of the heterogeneity of the COVID positive patient will further enhance understanding the decision-making process in the cardiac surgical patient through these difficult times.