Influence of a multiple polymerase chain reaction panel on the diagnosis or discard of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a Chilean COVID-19 critical patients cohort

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is frequent in critical COVID-19 patients. Its early diagnosis is essential for its prognosis. Aim: To demonstrate the usefulness of the FilmArray Pneumo panel (FAP-P) in confirming or ruling out VAP in these patients. Methods: Retrospective study of 71 critical COVID-19 patients with suspected VAP in whom cultures and FAP-P were performed for diagnostic confirmation. Clinical characteristics, microbiology and mortality are described. The validity and safety of FAP-P is defined. Results: The use of FAP-P and cultures ruled out VAP in 29 patients (40.8%). In 41 patients, VAP was confirmed and the 30-day mortality was 48.8%. Forty-eight samples were studied, the cultures were positive in 30 (62.5%) and 33 bacteria were detected, FAP-P detected 32 of these 33 bacteria;37 bacteria were exclusively detected by PFA-P. The most prevalent bacteria were Klebsiella pneumoniae (31.4%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21.4%) and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii (14.2%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of FAP-P with respect to cultures were 96.9%, 92.5%, 46.4% and 99.8%, respectively. One patient had VAP due to Burkholderia cepacia bacteria not detected by FAP-P. Conclusions: FAP-P is an effective molecular technique to rule out and diagnose VAP, allowing rapid suspension of antibiotics or early targeted treatment.

The role of the therapeutic physical exercise and the complex recovery treatment for the patients with chronic degenerative diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common causes of pain and musculoskeletal disability and mainly affects the middle-aged and the elderly. The condition is chronic and disabling, it diminishes the patients' quality of life. Purpose. The study had the purpose of pointing out a possible connection between physical activity and the reduction of pain accompanied by the increased functional capacity in patients with chronic degenerative diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and method: The study was conducted on an outpatient basis for a period of 6 months on a number of 40 patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis. The evaluation of the patients was made at the beginning of the treatment and at its end (after 4 weeks), as well as at the control after 12 weeks. Results: The study included a number of 40 patients over 45 years old, divided into 2 study groups: in group L1-knee osteoarthritis and in group L2 -hip osteoarthritis. The therapeutic physical exercise reduced pain and stiffness, and it also improved the functional capacity. Conclusions: Therapeutic physical exercise has an important role in the reduction of pain and disability, as well as in the increase in the quality of life, if it is done properly.

Remdesivir in a pre-term neonate – was it worth it?

Background SituationOn day 24 of life, a pre-term neonate (GA at birth 31+2 weeks) with achondroplasia tested SARS-CoV-2 positive on PCR. The patient was ventilated for increasing oxygen requirements, eventually necessitating transfer to the regional PICU. Meeting the clinical case definition for severe acute respiratory COVID-19, the patient was initiated on hydrocortisone 0.5 mg/kg BD as per Scottish Paediatric Consensus Guidelines for COVID-19.1 Respiratory decline, with bilateral consolidation on chest X-Ray led to oscillation on day 27 of life. An MDT was set up to consider next steps. There is a paucity of evidence for managing severe acute respiratory COVID-19 in this age group. The MDT considered unlicensed use of tocilizumab (TOC) and remdesivir (RDV) as potential therapies. Evidence on the utility of RDV in severe acute COVID-19 is conflicting.2 3 TOC use in <18 years is extrapolated from adult data, with sparse dosing information in <1 years. CRP remained below adult threshold (44). Concern regarding immunosuppressive effect of TOC was raised as secondary bacterial infection had not been excluded. On balance, the MDT concluded RDV be offered as the ‘next step' treatment option. Renal and liver function were normal pre-RDV (ALT 19, AST 57), however within 48hour (2 doses) of RDV, transaminases had increased to >5x ULN (ALT 354, AST 873). Clinical status remained otherwise stable, and no other changes to medication were identified, thus the decision was made to withdraw RDV as the likely cause. 48 hours post withdrawal transaminases has normalised. The patient clinically improved over the next 5 days and was extubated ~7 days later.Clinical ContributionPharmacy played a significant role in the MDT, and were heavily involved in all risk:benefit decision making. Initial literature searches were conducted to establish current data on both TOC and RDV in this age group. A Phase 2/3 trial protocol evaluating RDV safety, tolerability and pK in COVID-19 patients from birth-18 years was obtained to further guide decision making. Assessment of treatment eligibility based on UK CAS alert and the Phase 2/3 study was undertaken, along with assessment of baseline clinical parameters. On MDT decision to treat, Pharmacy supported in the ULM application process (internal and Gilead compassionate access scheme) and advised on dosing, administration and monitoring. Pharmacy played a pivotal role in monitoring and recognition of adverse events. On identifying rapidly developing transaminitis, a full review was undertaken to determine RDV as a likely causative agent to support the decision to withdraw treatment. A Yellow Card was completed.ConclusionDespite withdrawal of RDV after only 2 days, the patient clinically improved and was extubated and discharged a short time after, raising the question as to whether RDV offered any clinical benefit in this case. Managing severe acute COVID-19 in neonates presents a significant challenge for clinical teams. There remains a paucity of evidence in this age group.4 Treatment decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, however outcomes are rarely published. More evidence is required before significant conclusions can be drawn about the utility or safety profile of RDV in neonates.ReferencesPollock L, McLellan K. ‘Scottish Paediatric Consensus Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19 and related conditions', produced by Scottish Hyperinflammatory MDT;NHS GG&C Clinical Guidelines;2020, V3.Beigel J, Tomashek K, Dodd L, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19- final report. New England Journal of Medicine 2020;383:1813–1826.Hongchao P, Peto R, Henao-Restrepo AM, et al. Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19 – interim WHO solidarity trail results (WHO Solidarity Trail Consortium). New England Journal of Medicine 2021;384:497–511.Swann O, Holden K, Turtle L, et al. Clinical characteristics of children and young people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study. BMJ 2020;370:m3249.

How to recognize a trustworthy clinical practice guideline.

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines represent a fundamental tool to summarize relevant evidence regarding a set of clinical choices and provide guidance for making optimal clinical decisions. Clinicians must differentiate between guidelines that provide trustworthy evidence guidance and those that do not. We present six questions clinicians should ask when evaluating a guideline's trustworthiness. (1) Are the recommendations clear?; (2) Have the panelists considered all alternatives?; (3) Have the panelists considered all patient-important outcomes?; (4) Is the recommendation based on an up-to-date systematic review?; (5) Is the strength of the recommendation compatible with the certainty of the evidence?; (6) Might conflicts of interest influence the recommendations? If yes, were they managed? Once the conclude they are dealing with a trustworthy guideline, clinicians must gain an understanding of the transparent evidence summary that the guideline will offer, and judge the applicability of trustworthy recommendations to their patients and settings. Consideration of the circumstances and values and preferences of patients will be crucial for all weak or conditional recommendations.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Determining Clinical Priorities Using a Clinical Practice Guideline Deconstruction Tool: COVID-19 in Austere Operational Environments.

The Joint Trauma System (JTS) publishes Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) used by military and civilian healthcare providers worldwide. With the expansion of CPG development in recent years, there was a need to collate, sort, and deconflict existing and new guidance using systematic methodology both within and across CPGs. This need became readily apparent at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic when guidelines were rapidly developed and fielded in deployed environments. To meet the needs of deploying units requesting immediate and concise guidance for managing COVID-19, JTS developed the CPG entitled Management of Covid-19 in Austere Operational Environments. By applying a deconstruction process to organize clinical recommendations across multiple categories, JTS was able to present clear clinical recommendations across "role of care" and "scope of practice." The use of a deconstruction process supported the rapid socialization of the CPG and may have improved clinical understanding among deployed medical teams.

Adoption of clinical practice guidelines in cases of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

PURPOSE: Despite being one of the most common types of the peripheral vertigo encountered in clinical practice, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) remains underdiagnosed and undertreated, even in affluent health care systems. The publication of fully updated clinical practice guidelines significantly facilitated the diagnosis and treatment of BPPV. This study evaluates the adoption of the guidelines in our clinical setting and reviews further recommendations for quality-of-care improvement. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional survey included a total of 1155 adult patients diagnosed with BPPV at the biggest tertiary care center in the country during a 5-year period (2017-2021). The data for the first three years (2017-2020) and 919 patients were collected in full, and for the remaining 236 patients (2020-2021) only partially due to the disturbance in referrals caused by COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The familiarity with and adherence to the published clinical guidelines by physicians judged by patients' charts and our health care database were overall unsatisfactory. The adherence varied from 0 to 40.5% in our sample. The recommendations for making the diagnosis and for repositioning procedure as first-line therapy were followed in only 20-30% of cases. CONCLUSION: There are large opportunities for improvement in quality of care of BPPV patients. Apart from constant and systematic education at the primary health care level, the health care system may need to adopt more advanced measures of ensuring better adherence to guidelines and subsequent reduction in medical costs.

Clinical practice guidelines: Choosing wisely

In Pediatric Urology as in other branches of medicine treatment decisions are based primarily on robust evidence. This evidence evolves from clinical research studies over a number of years. Outcomes of the research studies culminates in the development of clinical practice guidelines for use in various conditions and healthcare settings. In the current climate of the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of research studies and clinical guidelines has become far more evident than relying on anecdotal evidence. The Guidelines International Network has over 3,700 guidelines from around the globe. However which guidelines should be trusted and which should be implemented remains a daunting experience. This chapter provides an overview of how guidelines should be developed, appraised and trusted as robust for use in Clinical Pediatric Urological Practice. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021.

Systematic review of post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation guidelines.

Introduction: Post-COVID-19 syndrome is associated with significant health and potential socioeconomic burden. Due to its novel nature, there is a lack of clarity over best practice for the rehabilitation of patients with ongoing or new symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systematic review of clinical and service guidelines for post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation. Methods: This review was registered on PROSPERO and is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included guidelines formally published or endorsed by a recognised professional body, covering rehabilitation of people with symptoms following resolution of acute COVID-19 infection. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, NHS Evidence, MedRxiv, PsyArXiv and Google for terms related to COVID-19, rehabilitation and guideline. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, data extracted and quality assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools for clinical guidelines and the AGREE-HS tool for service guidelines. We included guidelines of sufficient quality in a narrative synthesis. Results: We identified 12 790 articles, of which 37 guidelines (19 clinical only, 7 service only and 11 combined clinical and service) were included. Guidelines covered a range of countries, rehabilitation types, populations and rehabilitation settings. Synthesis of clinical guidelines (n=4) was structured following the patient pathway, from identification, to assessment, treatment and discharge, with consideration of specific patient groups. Synthesis of service guidelines (n=8) was structured according to the Donabedian framework. Discussion: Though the available post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation guidelines were generally of poor quality, there was a high degree of consensus regarding the breadth of symptoms, the need for holistic assessment by a broad multidisciplinary team and person-centred care. There was less clarity on management options, measuring outcomes and discharge criteria. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021236049.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Optimization of antimicrobial prescription in the hospital.

Internal Medicine wards are an appropriate focus of antibiotic stewardship, along with emergency departments and intensive care units, because a large proportion of patients are with parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotics. Given the unmet clinical need of antibiotic optimization in the hospital and the importance of front-line practitioners for antibiotic stewardship, the barriers and tactics to overcome them were discussed in a round table at the European Congress of Internal Medicine. Better rapid diagnostic tests should help to increase appropriate early antibiotic rates, favoring diversity in antibiotic choices adapted to the awareness of local resistance patterns. Providing such is a greater challenge in low-resource settings. Prescriptions should be personalized, adjusting dosage and source control to specific patients' conditions. Shorter antibiotic duration and de-escalation are major drivers to reduce adverse events, with mortality and recurrence rates being independent of antimicrobial duration. Appropriate diagnostic tests with quick turnaround times decrease excessive antibiotic use. Antimicrobial optimization requires a multidisciplinary approach and it should be a core competence of training specialists, improving opportunities to provide safer patient care.

Dentists' Perceptions of Personal Infection Control Measurements in Response to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To explore through focus groups (FGs) the perceptions of dental practitioners (DPs) from different countries of the challenges of implementing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related biosafety measures, especially personal protection equipment (PPE), during the COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: DPs from Colombia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States were invited to participate in country-based FGs. These were facilitated by an experienced moderator who explored the factors that guided the implementation of COVID-19 related biosafety measures and PPE use. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis on the basis of categories defined by the researchers deductively and inductively. RESULTS: A total of 25 DPs participated in 3 FGs (Colombia:n = 8; United Kingdom: n = 7; United States: n = 9) and 1 in an in-depth interview (Germany). DPs described using several processes to judge which guidance document to adopt and which aspects of the guidance were important in their practice. These included making judgments concerning the views of any indemnity organization to which the DPs were responsible, the staff's views in the practice, and the views of patients. In the absence of a single overarching guidance document, DPs filtered the available information through several considerations to find a level of PPE that they deemed "implementable" in local practice. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the implementation of evidence-based practice is subject to modification through a lens of what is "feasible" in practice. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Clinicians, educators, and policy makers can use the results of this study to understand the process through which guidance is transformed into implementable patient care pathways in the dental practice.

Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Empirical Antibiotic Therapy of Bacteremia, Urinary Tract Infection, and Pneumonia: A Multi-Center Quasi-Experimental Study.

A quasi-experimental study was conducted on the implementation of locally developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for empirical antibiotic (ATB) therapy of common infections (bacteremia, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia) in the hospitals from January 2019 to December 2020. The CPGs were developed using data from patients with these infections at individual hospitals. Relevant CPG data pre- and post-implementation were collected and compared. Of the 1644 patients enrolled in the study, 808 and 836 were in the pre- and post-implementation periods, respectively, and patient outcomes were compared. Significant reductions in the mean durations of intensive care unit stay (3.44 ± 9.08 vs. 2.55 ± 7.89 days; p = 0.035), ventilator use (5.73 ± 12.14 vs. 4.22 ± 10.23 days; p = 0.007), piperacillin/tazobactam administration (0.954 ± 3.159 vs. 0.660 ± 2.217 days, p = 0.029), and cefoperazone/sulbactam administration (0.058 ± 0.737 vs. 0.331 ± 1.803 days, p = 0.0001) occurred. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CPG-implementation was associated with favorable clinical outcomes (adjusted odds ratio 1.286, 95% confidence interval: 1.004-1.647, p = 0.046). Among patients who provided follow-up cultures (n = 284), favorable microbiological responses were significantly less frequent during the pre-implementation period than the post-implementation period (80.35% vs. 91.89%; p = 0.01). In conclusion, the locally developed CPG implementation is feasible and effective in improving patient outcomes and reducing ATB consumption. Hospital antimicrobial stewardship teams should be able to facilitate CPG development and implementation for antimicrobial therapy for common infections.

Quality of critical care clinical practice guidelines involving pharmacotherapy recommendations.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality of critical care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) involving pharmacotherapy recommendations. METHODS: A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for critical care CPGs published between 2012 and 2022 and involving pharmacotherapy recommendations. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was employed to appraise CPG quality through independent assessment by 2 appraisers. RESULTS: Twenty-one CPGs were evaluated. The number of recommendations in each guideline ranged from 2 to 250, with a total of 1,604 recommendations. The number of strong (vs weak) recommendations in each guideline ranged from 0 to 31, with a total of 116 strong recommendations, or 7.23% of the total number of recommendations. There was at least 1 pharmacist author for 9 (43%) of the guidelines. The AGREE II domains for which mean quality scores of evaluated guidelines were highest were scope and purpose (0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92), rigor of development (0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.83), clarity of presentation (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), and editorial independence (0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94), while those for which mean scores were lowest were stakeholder involvement (0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75) and applicability (0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). Involvement of a pharmacist in CPG development was associated with significantly higher scoring for stakeholder involvement (P = 0.0356). CONCLUSION: Strong recommendations accounted for less than 10% of the recommendations in the evaluated CPGs. Moreover, there are concerns related to guideline applicability (ie, advice or tools for putting recommendations into practice) and stakeholder involvement (ie, inclusion of individuals from all relevant groups). It is important to involve pharmacists in CPGs with pharmacotherapy recommendations.

Systematic review and critical evaluation of quality of clinical practice guidelines on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and critically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched until February 15, 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were clinical practice guidelines on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. The risk of bias and quality assessments of the included clinical practice guidelines were performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II tool, which is considered the gold standard for quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines. To define a clinical practice guideline as of good quality, we adopted the cutoff score proposed by Amer et al: if the overall clinical practice guideline score was >60%, it was recommended. METHODS: The following clinical points related to the management of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were addressed: criteria for maternal hospitalization, recommendations for follow-up fetal growth scan, specific recommendations against invasive procedures, management of labor, timing of delivery, postpartum care, and vaccination strategy. RESULTS: A total of 28 clinical practice guidelines were included. All recommended hospitalization only for severe disease; 46.1% (6/13) suggested a fetal growth scan after SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas 23.1% (3/13) did not support this practice. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recommended in symptomatic women by 77.1% (7/9) of the clinical practice guidelines. None of the guidelines recommended administering corticosteroids only for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in preterm gestation, unless specific obstetrical indication exists. Elective induction of labor from 39 weeks of gestation was suggested by 18.1% (2/11) of the clinical practice guidelines included in the present review, whereas 45.4% (5/11) did not recommend elective induction unless other obstetrical indications coexisted. There were 27% (3/11) of clinical practice guidelines that suggested shortening of the second stage of labor, and active pushing was supported by 18.1% (2/11). There was general agreement among the clinical practice guidelines in not recommending cesarean delivery only for the presence of maternal infection and in recommending vaccine boosters at least 6 months after the primary series of vaccination. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment of clinical practice guidelines had a mean of 50% (standard deviation±21.82%), and 9 clinical practice guidelines scored >60%. CONCLUSION: A significant heterogeneity was found in some of the main aspects of the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, as reported by the published clinical practice guidelines.

Guidelines and evidence-based recommendations in anaesthesia: where do we stand?

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.