V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis - 2024.

Since we published the "IV Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis", in2017, several advances have been achieved and have enabled a further understanding of the different aspects of "Rhinitis". This new guideline, developed jointly by ASBAI, SBP and SBORL, represents a relevant milestone in the updated and integrated management of the different forms of the disease, and it aims to unify evidence-based approaches to improve the diagnosis and treatment of this common and often underestimated condition. The document covers a wide range of topics, including clear definitions of the different phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis, risk factors, updated diagnostic criteria, and recommended methods for clinical and laboratory investigation. We stress the importance of detailed clinical history and objective assessment, as well as tools for control and assessing severity tools an accurate diagnostic approach to the disease. Regarding treatment, it emphasizes the treatment customization, considering the severity of symptoms, the presence of comorbidities and the impact on the patient's quality of life. We discuss different drug treatment, in addition to non-pharmacological measures, such as environmental control and specific immunotherapy; and the possible role of immunobiological agents. Furthermore, the consensus addresses issues related to patient education, prevention and management of special situations, such as rhinitis in children, in pregnant women and in the elderly. In short, the "V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis" represents a comprehensive and updated guide for healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and management of rhinitis, aiming to improve patients' quality of life through an integrated and evidence-based approach.

Supporting evidence-based judicial decisions on health care in Brazil: an experience report / Apoio técnico-científico à tomada de decisão judicial em saúde no Brasil: um relato de experiência / Apoyo técnico-científico a la toma de decisiones judiciales en salud en Brasil: un relato de experiencia

Objective: The main objective of this study is to report on the implementation and results of the "Supporting Health-Related Judicial Decisions in Brazil" project conducted at the Health Technology Assessment Center, Hospital Sírio-Libanês through the "Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde", in Brazil. Methods: This study is an experience report of a project conducted at the Health Technology Assessment Center, Hospital Sírio-Libanês. Results: The activities of the project occurred in 2023 and included two online training courses on primary studies and systematic reviews, 11 one-day workshops with technical-scientific content for members of the Technical Support Centers for the Judiciary (NATJus), 40 online technical-scientific consultations for magistrates on a digital platform, 11 technical-scientific reports addressing the most legally claimed technologies in Brazil; two methodological tools, a national forum (hybrid event), 10 chat-based mentorships for NATJus members; and the maintenance of an open-access blog, by publishing news on relevant topics on law and health. Discussion and conclusion: This project has contributed to the improvement of the judicial decision-making process by providing a range of activities aimed at aiding the prioritization of health technologies that are clearly effective and safe over those that are ineffective, harmful, or have uncertain effects.

Objetivo: O objetivo principal deste estudo é relatar a implementação e os resultados do projeto "Apoio técnico-científico à tomada de decisão judicial em Saúde no Brasil" realizado no Hospital Sírio-Libanês por meio do "Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde". Métodos: Este estudo é um relato de experiência de um projeto realizado no Núcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde do Hospital Sírio-Libanês. Resultados: As atividades do projeto ocorreram em 2023 e incluíram dois cursos de formação online sobre estudos primários e revisões sistemáticas, 11 oficinas de um dia com conteúdo técnico-científico para membros dos Núcleos de Apoio Técnico ao Judiciário (NATJus), 40 consultas on-line técnico-científicas para magistrados em plataforma digital, 11 relatórios técnico-científicos abordando as tecnologias mais reivindicadas judicialmente no Brasil; duas ferramentas metodológicas, um fórum nacional (evento híbrido), 10 mentorias via chat para membros do NATJus; e a manutenção de um blog de acesso aberto, com publicação de notícias sobre temas relevantes de direito e saúde. Discussão e conclusão: Este projeto contribuiu para a melhoria do processo de tomada de decisão judicial, fornecendo uma série de atividades destinadas a ajudar na priorização de tecnologias de saúde que sejam claramente eficazes e seguras em detrimento daquelas que são ineficazes, prejudiciais ou têm efeitos incertos.

Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este estudio es informar sobre la implementación y los resultados del proyecto "Apoyo a las Decisiones Judiciales Relacionadas con la Salud en Brasil" realizado en el Centro de Tecnología en Salud del Hospital Sírio-Libanês a través del "Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde", en Brasil. Métodos: Este estudio es un informe de experiencia de un proyecto realizado en el Centro de Tecnología en Salud del Hospital Sírio-Libanês. Resultados: Las actividades del proyecto ocurrieron en 2023 e incluyeron dos cursos de capacitación en línea sobre estudios primarios y revisiones sistemáticas, 11 talleres de un día de contenido técnico-científico para miembros de los Centros de Apoyo Técnico al Poder Judicial (NATJus), 40 consultas técnico-científicas en línea para magistrados en plataforma digital, 11 informes técnico-científicos que abordan las tecnologías más reclamadas legalmente en Brasil; dos herramientas metodológicas, un foro nacional (evento híbrido), 10 mentorías basadas en chat para miembros de NATJus; y el mantenimiento de un blog de acceso abierto, mediante la publicación de noticias sobre temas relevantes en derecho y salud. Discusión y conclusión: Este proyecto ha contribuido a mejorar el proceso de toma de decisiones judiciales proporcionando actividades para priorizar las tecnologías sanitarias claramente eficaces y seguras frente a aquellas que son ineficaces, nocivas o de efectos inciertos.

La Pregunta de Investigación y su Asociación con los Niveles de Evidencia y Grados de Recomendación en Estudios de Investigación Clínica / The Research Question and its Association with the Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation in Clinical Research Studies

La mayoría de las preguntas de investigación (PI), conducirán a un proyecto que apunta a generar nuevo conocimiento, sin embargo el escenario, la población a estudio y la metodología pueden ser muy diferentes, lo que determinará que los resultados obtenidos y por ende, el nivel de evidencia (NE) y el grado de recomendación (GR) puedan variar notablemente. El objetivo de este artículo fue proporcionar recomendaciones para formular una PI asociada al NE y respectivos GR que se pueden desprender a partir de los resultados generados. Este artículo entregará algunos conocimientos sobre la PI y su relación con los NE y GR de la evidencia generada a partir de resultados obtenidos por un proceso de investigación en diferentes escenarios de investigación.

SUMMARY: Most research questions (RQ) will lead to a project that aims to generate new knowledge. However, the setting, study population and methodology may be very different, which will determine the results obtained and therefore, the level of evidence (LOE) and the grade of recommendation (GOR) may vary significantly. The aim of this study was to provide recommendations to formulate a RQ associated with the LOE and respective GOR that can be derived from the generated results. This article will provide some knowledge about the RQ and its relationship with the LEO and GOR of the generated evidence from results obtained by a research process in different research scenarios.

Characterization of an At-Risk Population for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) in a Primary Care Setting Along the U.S.-Mexico Border.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the burden of suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in a predominantly Hispanic patient population and explore the utility of the American Gastroenterological Association's NAFLD Clinical Care Pathway (CCP). METHODOLOGY: Electronic medical records (n = 223) were used to divide patients into risk groups based on the amount of metabolic risk factors they presented, diabetic status, or if they presented other liver diseases. Fribosis-4 (FIB-4) scores were used to determine the risk for advanced fibrosis. RESULTS: Most patients (83.8%) were considered at risk for NAFLD based on CCP criteria, and about a third of patients (33.2%) were found to be at indeterminate (n = 60; 26.9%) or high risk (n = 14; 6.3%) for advanced fibrosis. Most indeterminate-risk patients (78.3%) were not referred for liver imaging. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates the potential of the CCP as a corrective tool that could help to better identify and screen patients at risk for NAFLD.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Treating Breastfeeding Nipple Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nonpharmacological topical interventions for treating breastfeeding nipple pain. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing lactating women suffering from breastfeeding painful nipples were included. Primary outcomes were pain, healing process, and adverse events. A comprehensive search was conducted on June 02, 2023, without date or language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence, the GRADE approach. Results: Nineteen RCTs with unclear to high risk of bias were included. There was uncertain evidence regarding the effects of photobiomodulation versus placebo on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1 0.49 to 1.19; 139 participants, 2 RCTs). There are uncertainties concerning the effects of lanolin versus breast milk on pain (MD -1.80; 95% CI -2.43 to -1.17; 1 RCT; 180 participants), wound healing (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.26 to -0.46; 1 RCT; 180 participants), and any adverse events (zero events in both groups). Similar effects were observed by the other interventions assessed. Conclusion: The evidence of nonpharmacological topical interventions for painful nipples is imprecise, and future RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed to support recommendations. Considering the accessibility and low cost of these alternative treatments, the findings of this evidence synthesis could support clinical decision-making and guide future research. PROSPERO CRD42020170320.

The impact of an online course on agreement rates of the certainty of evidence assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach: a before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is a systematic method for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) and strength of recommendations in health care. We aimed to verify the effects of an online-based GRADE course on multirater consistency in the evaluation of the CoE in systematic reviews (SRs) analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Sixty-five Brazilian methodologists and researchers participated in an online course over 8 weeks. Asynchronous lessons and weekly synchronous meetings addressed the GRADE system in the context of CoE assessment. We asked participants to evaluate the CoE of random SRs (two before and another two after the course). Analyzes focused on the multirater agreement with a standard response, in the interrater agreement, and before-after changes in the proportion of participants that rated down the domains. RESULTS: 48 individuals completed the course. Participants presented improvements in the raters' assessment of the CoE using the GRADE approach after the course. The multirater consistency of indirectness, imprecision, and the overall CoE increased after the course, as well as the agreement between raters and the standard response. Furthermore, interrater reliability increased for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, and overall CoE, indicating progress in between-raters consistency. After the course, approximately 78% of individuals rated down the overall CoE to a low/very low degree, and participants presented more explanations for the judgment of each domain. CONCLUSION: An online GRADE course improved the consistency and agreement of the CoE assessment by Brazilian researchers. Online training courses have the potential to improve skills in guideline methodology development.

Evaluación de la calidad de guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de adultos con COVID-19 leve o moderada, utilizando la herramienta AGREE II / Assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of adults with mild or moderate COVID-19, using the AGREE II tool

INTRODUCCIÓN: Varias guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la COVID-19 se han desarrollado durante los dos últimos años de pandemia, sin embargo, su calidad metodológica es poco clara. OBJETIVO: Realizar una evaluación sistemática de la calidad de las guías de práctica clínica publicadas entre 2021 y octubre de 2022 para el tratamiento de la COVID-19, utilizando la herramienta AGREE II, e identificar las recomendaciones formuladas en dichas guías. JUSTIFICACIÓN: Durante la pandemia, surgieron múltiples guías, pero la claridad so-bre su calidad metodológica fue limitada. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de guías de práctica clínica sobre el tratamiento para la COVID-19 leve o moderada utilizando metabuscadores como Epistemonikos y Trip Database, y sitios web de organizaciones de sa-lud. Las guías seleccionadas fueron evaluadas con el instrumento AGREE II. RESULTADOS: Se evaluaron 11 GPC, presentando altas puntuaciones en los dominios de alcance y propósito (98,74 %), participación de los implicados (97,22 %), rigor en la elaboración (92 %), claridad de presentación (100 %), aplicabilidad (85,61 %), e independencia editorial (100 %). Aunque la ca-lidad general de las guías fue alta, se identificó la necesidad de mejorar en los aspectos de rigor en la elaboración y aplicabilidad de las recomendaciones. CONCLUSIONES: Encontramos que la calidad de las guías de práctica clínica evaluadas, en su mayoría es alta y, por lo tanto, son recomendables, aunque reconocemos la necesidad de mejorar la descripción de los dominios de rigor en la elaboración y aplicabilidad de las recomendaciones.

INTRODUCTION: Several clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19 have been developed during the last two years of the pandemic, but their methodological quality is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 published between 2021 and October 2022 using the AGREE II tool, and to identify the recommendations made in these guidelines. JUSTIFICATION: During the pandemic, many guidelines were published, but clarity about their methodological quality was limited. METHODS: A systematic search for clinical practice guidelines on the management of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was performed using meta-search engines such as Epistemoni-kos and Trip Database, as well as health organization websites. The selected guidelines were appraised using the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Eleven clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were evaluated, showing high scores in the domains of scope and purpose (98.74%), stakehol-der involvement (97.22%), rigor of development (92%), clarity of presentation (100%), applica-bility (85.61%), and editorial independence (100%). Although the overall quality of the guidelines was high, there was identified a need for improvement in the areas of rigor of development and applicability of the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the quality of the evalua-ted clinical practice guidelines is predominantly high, and therefore, they are recommendable. However, we recognize the need to improve the descriptions of the domains of rigor of develop-ment and applicability of the recommendations,

Key factors in the choice of appropriate outcomes for clinical trials. / Factores clave en la elección de desenlaces apropiados para estudios clínicos.

Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem. The correct choice of outcomes will help health decision-makers and clinicians deliver appropriate patient-centered care and optimize the use of resources in healthcare and clinical research.

La investigación en salud es la base del conocimiento médico y de las recomendaciones en los sistemas de salud. Por ello, la elección de desenlaces apropiados en estudios de intervenciones terapéuticas es un paso fundamental en la producción de evidencia y, posteriormente, para la toma de decisiones. En este artículo proponemos tres factores clave para la elección de desenlaces: la inclusión de desenlaces reportados por pacientes, ya que ponen el foco del efecto de la intervención en la percepción que tienen los propios pacientes de su estado de salud y calidad de vida; la consideración de desenlaces clínicamente relevantes, los cuales son mediciones directas del estado de salud del paciente y, por ende serán determinantes en la toma de decisiones; y la utilización de herramienta que estandariza y permite la homogeneización en la medición e interpretación de desenlaces, facilitando la producción y posterior síntesis de evidencia apropiada para el ecosistema de evidencia. La correcta elección de los desenlaces permitirá que la evidencia generada de estos estudios ayude a los tomadores de decisiones en salud y los profesionales clínicos a entregar cuidados apropiados centrados en el paciente y a optimizar el uso de recursos en salud e investigación clínica.

Factores clave en la elección de desenlaces apropiados para estudios clínicos / Key factors in the choice of appropriate outcomes for clinical trials

La investigación en salud es la base del conocimiento médico y de las recomendaciones en los sistemas de salud. Por ello, la elección de desenlaces apropiados en estudios de intervenciones terapéuticas es un paso fundamental en la producción de evidencia y, posteriormente, para la toma de decisiones. En este artículo proponemos tres factores clave para la elección de desenlaces: la inclusión de desenlaces reportados por pacientes, ya que ponen el foco del efecto de la intervención en la percepción que tienen los propios pacientes de su estado de salud y calidad de vida; la consideración de desenlaces clínicamente relevantes, los cuales son mediciones directas del estado de salud del paciente y, por ende serán determinantes en la toma de decisiones; y la utilización de herramienta que estandariza y permite la homogeneización en la medición e interpretación de desenlaces, facilitando la producción y posterior síntesis de evidencia apropiada para el ecosistema de evidencia. La correcta elección de los desenlaces permitirá que la evidencia generada de estos estudios ayude a los tomadores de decisiones en salud y los profesionales clínicos a entregar cuidados apropiados centrados en el paciente y a optimizar el uso de recursos en salud e investigación clínica.

Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem. The correct choice of outcomes will help health decision-makers and clinicians deliver appropriate patient-centered care and optimize the use of resources in healthcare and clinical research.

Consensus of the Brazilian association of hematology, hemotherapy and cellular therapy on patient blood management: History and scenario of patient blood management in the world and in Brazil.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) is a multidimensional approach that seeks to optimize the use of blood and its components in patients. This matter emerged as a response to the need to reduce unnecessary exposure to blood transfusions and their potential risks. In the past, blood transfusion was often overused resulting in complications and high costs. The advent of Patient Blood Management has caused a paradigm shift, highlighting anemia prevention, bleeding control and maximizing the production of blood cells by the organism itself. Patient Blood Management guidelines include the early identification of anemia, strategies to minimize blood loss during surgery, intraoperative blood conservation techniques, preoperative hemoglobin optimization and evidence-based approaches to the rational use of blood transfusions. Aiming to improve clinical outcomes, decrease transfusion-related complications and reduce associated costs, this multidisciplinary approach counts on doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals. Based on research and clinical evidence, Patient Blood Management continues to evolve thereby promoting safer, more effective patient-centered practices. Its implementation has proven beneficial in various medical contexts thereby contributing to improvements in the quality of care provided to patients. Our goal with this Consensus is to present readers with a broad and diverse view of Patient Blood Management so that they have the building blocks to implement this new technique.

Consensus of the Brazilian association of hematology, hemotherapy and cellular therapy on patient blood management: Antifibrinolytics.

The use of strategies to reduce blood loss and transfusions is essential in the treatment of surgical patients, including in complex cardiac surgeries and those that use cardiopulmonary bypass. Antifibrinolytics, such as epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid (TXA), are widely used in these procedures, as well as in other types of surgeries. These medicines are included in the World Health Organization (WHO) list of 'essential medicines'. Scientific evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of EACA in reducing bleeding and the need for transfusions in heart surgery. EACA is highly recommended for use in heart surgery by the American Society of Anesthesiology Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management. Regarding the safety of EACA, there is no robust evidence of any significant thrombotic potential. TXA has also been shown to be effective in reducing the use of blood transfusions in cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries and is considered safer than other antifibrinolytic agents. There is no evidence of any increased risk of thromboembolic events with TXA, but doses greater than 2 g per day have been associated with an increased risk of seizures. It is also important to adjust the dose in patients with renal impairment. In conclusion, antifibrinolytics, such as EACA and TXA, are effective in reducing blood loss and transfusion use in cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries, without causing serious adverse effects.

The methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced differentiated thyroid cancer: Meta-research study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) treatment have shown an improvement in overall and progression-free survival in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer. However, it is necessary to evaluate these studies to assess methodological biases and inconsistencies that may impact the effects. OBJECTIVE: To map and assess the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and selective reporting bias. METHODS: RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of TKI for the treatment of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer were included. The search was performed in the MEDLINE database. The included RCTs were assessed for the adequacy of the methodological steps, as recommended by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were analyzed, of which 77.7% were classified as low risk of bias regarding selective reporting and 33.3% as high risk of reporting bias. The mean time between protocol registration and study publication was approximately 5.11 years. Moreover, 66.7% were classified as low risk of bias for randomization and allocation concealment, and 33.3% did not specify the randomization process and allocation concealment in a way that would allow the identification of occurrences of bias. Concerning blinding of participants and outcome assessors, 77.8% of the RCTs reported adequate blinding and were classified as having a low risk of bias, 11.1% had a high risk of bias, and 11.1% had insufficient information and were classified as having unclear risk of bias. Regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors, 33.3% did the blinding correctly, 11.1% did not blind, and 55.6% did not provide enough information. CONCLUSION: Overall, the assessed RCTs were predominantly at low risk of bias. The critical evaluation of these studies is essential to have confidence in the treatment estimated effect that will support clinical decision-making and provide information to preclude future clinical study flaws.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. OBJECTIVE: This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. RESULTS: According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) guidelines: a critical appraisal using AGREE II and AGREE-REX tool.

BACKGROUND: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has provided open-access guidelines for cancer since 2014. However, no independent assessment of their quality has been conducted to date. This study aimed to critically evaluate the quality of SEOM guidelines on cancer treatment. METHODS: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX tool was used to evaluate the qualities of the guidelines. RESULTS: We assessed 33 guidelines, with 84.8% rated as "high quality". The highest median standardized scores (96.3) were observed in the domain "clarity of presentation", whereas "applicability" was distinctively low (31.4), with only one guideline scoring above 60%. SEOM guidelines did not include the views and preferences of the target population, nor did specify updating methods. CONCLUSIONS: Although developed with acceptable methodological rigor, SEOM guidelines could be improved in the future, particularly in terms of clinical applicability and patient perspectives.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study

Abstract Background Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. Objective This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. Results According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use Conclusions These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.