A comparison of international clinical practice guidelines on adult chronic rhinosinusitis shows considerable variability of recommendations for diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To compare international clinical practice guidelines on adult chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). DESIGN: Extensive literature search in Embase, PubMed and the internet (Google, websites of well-known guideline organizations) on November 21st 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Guidelines' quality was measured by the AGREE II instrument. A summary and comparison of recommendations on diagnosis and treatment with harmonized levels of evidence (LoE) and grade of recommendations (GoR) is given. RESULTS: We selected ten guidelines on CRS. Five guidelines were of sufficient to high quality according to AGREE II, the remaining guidelines predominantly did not meet AGREE II criteria. We harmonized all guideline recommendations so we could compare them, although three guidelines did not provide a LoE. Five guidelines provided recommendations on diagnosis, all of them recommended performing nasal endoscopy, CT scan and allergy testing (with varying GoRs). All ten guidelines provided recommendations on therapy, one treatment, i.e., the use of intranasal steroids, was recommended by all guidelines (with varying GoRs). Recommendations for surgical treatment of CRS were provided by five guidelines. CONCLUSION: We performed an extensive search and included ten (inter)national guidelines on CRS for adults. According to AGREE II, five were of good or sufficient quality. Overall, there was much variation between guidelines in recommended diagnostic test or treatment, direction of evidence and GoR. We found consensus for nasal endoscopy, CT scan, allergy testing and intranasal steroids. We argue for standardization of guideline development, to increase their quality and improve comparability.

Otolaryngologists adhere to evidence-based guidelines for chronic rhinosinusitis.

PURPOSE: To assess awareness of, opinion about and adherence to evidence-based guidelines on chronic rhinosinusitis among Dutch Otolaryngologists. METHODS: We assessed implementation of two guidelines, one Dutch and one European, that are both intended for diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We invited 485 Otolaryngologists to fill out a questionnaire and report on their opinion on and adherence to the guidelines. The adherence was further tested by 4 clinical case scenarios, derived from guideline recommendations. RESULTS: 166 (34%) completed the questionnaire. 99% of the respondents was aware of one or both guidelines. Most respondents (90%) consider the guidelines as directing or supportive for their clinical practice based on the clinical case scenarios, between 62 and 99% of the respondents act according to guidelines. Concerning diagnosis, CT-imaging is performed more and allergy testing less than recommended. Where multiple treatment options are recommended, the responses are more heterogeneous as a result of this. Nonetheless, high recommended treatment was chosen more often. Otolaryngologists were reluctant in surgical treatment as a first option, which is according to the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both the EPOS and CBO guideline are well known among Dutch Otolaryngologists and 90% indicates that the guideline is important in their daily practice. Adherence to the guidelines is sufficient to high. If multiple treatment or diagnostic options are recommended this leads to a more heterogeneous response pattern. Recommendations with a high grade of recommendation were followed up most often.

Quality of reporting and risk of bias in therapeutic otolaryngology publications.

BACKGROUND: High-quality trials have the potential to influence clinical practice. METHODS: Ten otolaryngology journals with the highest 2011 impact factors were selected and publications from 2010 were extracted. From all medical journals, the 20 highest impact factor journals were selected, and publications related to otolaryngology for 2010 and 2011 were extracted. For all publications, the reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed. RESULTS: The impact factor was 1.8-2.8 for otolaryngology journals and 6.0-101.8 for medical journals. Of 1500 otolaryngology journal articles, 262 were therapeutic studies; 94 had a high reporting quality and 5 a low risk of bias. Of 10 967 medical journal articles, 76 were therapeutic studies; 57 had a high reporting quality and 8 a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Reporting quality was high for 45 per cent of otolaryngology-related publications and 9 per cent met quality standards. General journals had higher impact factors than otolaryngology journals. Reporting quality was higher and risk of bias lower in general journals than in otolaryngology journals. Nevertheless, 76 per cent of articles in high impact factor journals carried a high risk of bias. Better reported and designed studies are the goal, with less risk of bias, especially in otolaryngology journals.