Quality assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased considerably in recent years. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPG) have been developed for the management of this disease across different clinical contexts, however, little evidence exists on their methodological quality. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: We identified CPGs by searching databases (MEDLINE - PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS) and other sources of gray literature on January 2022. We included guidelines with specific recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD and evaluated them with the AGREE II instrument to assess their methodological quality. Six independent reviewers assessed the quality of the guidelines and resolved conflicts by consensus. We assessed the degree of agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and change in quality over time was appraised in two periods: from 2012 to 2017 and from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: We analyzed and evaluated 26 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.74; 95% CI 0.36 - 0.89). The mean scores of the AGREE II domains were: "Scope and purpose" 84.51%, "Stakeholder involvement" 60.90%, "Rigor of development" 69.95%, "Clarity of presentation" 85.58%, "Applicability" 26.60%, and "Editorial independence" 62.02%. No changes in quality were found over time. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the CPGs evaluated was generally good, with a large majority of the assessed guidelines being "recommended" and "recommended with modifications"; despite this, there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of stakeholder involvement and applicability. Efforts to develop high quality CPGs for IBD need to be further optimized.

Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis Using the AGREE II Tool. / Evaluación de la calidad de guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de psoriasis mediante la herramienta AGREE II.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to help health professionals provide patients with excellent medical care. The last critical appraisal of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis evaluated publications up to 2009, but several new guidelines have been published since and their methodological quality remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis published between 2010 and 2020 using the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched for relevant CPGs in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribean Health Sciences Literature) as well as in the gray literature. Two reviewers working independently selected the guidelines for analysis and extracted the relevant data. Each guideline was then assessed using the AGREE II instrument by 5 reviewers, also working independently. RESULTS: Nineteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria and most of them had been produced in high-income countries. The mean (SD) domain scores were 84.9% (14.7%) for scope and purpose, 65.5% (19.3%) for stakeholder involvement, 66.7% (15.6%) for rigor of development, 72.8% (16.8%) for clarity of presentation, 46.6% (21.7%) for applicability, and 57.0% (30.4%) for editorial independence. CONCLUSIONS: Although about three-quarters of the CPGs assessed were judged to be of high quality and over half were recommended for use in clinical practice, standards of guideline development need to be raised to improve CPG quality, particularly in terms of applicability and editorial independence, which had the lowest scores in our evaluation.

Evaluación de la calidad de guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de psoriasis mediante la herramienta AGREE II / Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis Using the AGREE II Tool

Introducción: Las guías de práctica clínica (GPCs) se han desarrollado para apoyar a los profesionales de la salud a brindar una excelente atención médica a sus pacientes. Varias GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis se han desarrollado desde la última evaluación de calidad de GPCs publicada en 2009 y hasta el momento su calidad metodológica es poco clara. Objetivo: Evaluar sistemáticamente la calidad de GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis publicadas en el periodo de 2010-2020, utilizando el instrumento Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Material y métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas de GPCs en bases de datos, incluyendo MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y en la literatura gris. La selección de GPCs y la extracción de datos se realizó de forma independiente por dos revisores. Cinco revisores, aparte, evaluaron las GPCs usando el instrumento AGREE II. Resultados: Diez y nueve GPCs cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, en su mayoría desarrolladas en países de altos ingresos. Las puntuaciones medias de los dominios fueron: alcance y propósito (84,9% ± 14,7%), participación de las partes interesadas (65,5% ± 19,3%), rigor del desarrollo (66,7% ± 15,6%), claridad de presentación (72,8% ± 16,8%), aplicabilidad (46,6% ± 21,7%), e independencia editorial (57,0% ± 30,4%). Conclusiones: A pesar de que tres cuartos del total de GPCs incluidas fueron clasificadas como de alta calidad y más de la mitad de ellas se recomendaron para la práctica clínica, el desarrollo de las GPCs todavía debe optimizarse para mejorar su calidad. Especialmente en su aplicabilidad e independencia editorial, los cuales fueron los dominios con la puntuación más baja (AU)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to help health professionals provide patients with excellent medical care. The last critical appraisal of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis evaluated publications up to 2009, but several new guidelines have been published since and their methodological quality remains unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis published between 2010 and 2020 using the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Material and methods: We searched for relevant CPGs in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribean Health Sciences Literature) as well as in the gray literature. Two reviewers working independently selected the guidelines for analysis and extracted the relevant data. Each guideline was then assessed using the AGREE II instrument by 5 reviewers, also working independently. Results: Nineteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria and most of them had been produced in high-income countries. The mean (SD) domain scores were 84.9% (14.7%) for scope and purpose, 65.5% (19.3%) for stakeholder involvement, 66.7% (15.6%) for rigor of development, 72.8% (16.8%) for clarity of presentation, 46.6% (21.7%) for applicability, and 57.0% (30.4%) for editorial independence. Conclusions: Although about three-quarters of the CPGs assessed were judged to be of high quality and over half were recommended for use in clinical practice, standards of guideline development need to be raised to improve CPG quality, particularly in terms of applicability and editorial independence, which had the lowest scores in our evaluation (AU)

[Translated article] Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis Using the AGREE II Tool / Evaluación de la calidad de guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de psoriasis mediante la herramienta AGREE II

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to help health professionals provide patients with excellent medical care. The last critical appraisal of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis evaluated publications up to 2009, but several new guidelines have been published since and their methodological quality remains unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis published between 2010 and 2020 using the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Material and methods: We searched for relevant CPGs in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribean Health Sciences Literature) as well as in the gray literature. Two reviewers working independently selected the guidelines for analysis and extracted the relevant data. Each guideline was then assessed using the AGREE II instrument by 5 reviewers, also working independently. Results: Nineteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria and most of them had been produced in high-income countries. The mean (SD) domain scores were 84.9% (14.7%) for scope and purpose, 65.5% (19.3%) for stakeholder involvement, 66.7% (15.6%) for rigor of development, 72.8% (16.8%) for clarity of presentation, 46.6% (21.7%) for applicability, and 57.0% (30.4%) for editorial independence. Conclusions: Although about three-quarters of the CPGs assessed were judged to be of high quality and over half were recommended for use in clinical practice, standards of guideline development need to be raised to improve CPG quality, particularly in terms of applicability and editorial independence, which had the lowest scores in our evaluation (AU)

Introducción: Las guías de práctica clínica (GPCs) se han desarrollado para apoyar a los profesionales de la salud a brindar una excelente atención médica a sus pacientes. Varias GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis se han desarrollado desde la última evaluación de calidad de GPCs publicada en 2009 y hasta el momento su calidad metodológica es poco clara. Objetivo: Evaluar sistemáticamente la calidad de GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis publicadas en el periodo de 2010-2020, utilizando el instrumento Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Material y métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas de GPCs en bases de datos, incluyendo MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y en la literatura gris. La selección de GPCs y la extracción de datos se realizó de forma independiente por dos revisores. Cinco revisores, aparte, evaluaron las GPCs usando el instrumento AGREE II. Resultados: Diez y nueve GPCs cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, en su mayoría desarrolladas en países de altos ingresos. Las puntuaciones medias de los dominios fueron: alcance y propósito (84,9% ± 14,7%), participación de las partes interesadas (65,5% ± 19,3%), rigor del desarrollo (66,7% ± 15,6%), claridad de presentación (72,8% ± 16,8%), aplicabilidad (46,6% ± 21,7%), e independencia editorial (57,0% ± 30,4%). Conclusiones: A pesar de que tres cuartos del total de GPCs incluidas fueron clasificadas como de alta calidad y más de la mitad de ellas se recomendaron para la práctica clínica, el desarrollo de las GPCs todavía debe optimizarse para mejorar su calidad. Especialmente en su aplicabilidad e independencia editorial, los cuales fueron los dominios con la puntuación más baja (AU)

Histopathological re-evaluations of biopsies in prostate cancer: a nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Grading prostate biopsies has an important role in determining treatment strategy. Histopathological evaluations suffer from interobserver variability and therefore biopsies may be re-evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the extent of, characteristics associated with and clinical implications of prostate biopsy re-evaluations in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by biopsy between October 2015 and April 2016 identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. The proportion of re-evaluations was assessed and characteristics were compared between patients with and without biopsy re-evaluation. Interobserver concordance of ISUP grade and EAU prognostic risk classification was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Biopsy re-evaluation was performed in 172 (3.3%) of 5214 patients. Primary reason for re-evaluation in patients treated with curative intent was referral to another hospital. Most referred patients treated with curative intent (n = 1856) had no re-evaluation (93.0%, n = 1727). Patients with biopsy re-evaluation were younger and underwent more often prostatectomy compared to patients without re-evaluation. The disagreement rate for ISUP grade was 26.1% and interobserver concordance was substantial (κ-weighted = 0.74). Re-evaluation resulted in 21.1% (n = 14) of patients with localised PCa in a different prognostic risk group. More tumours were downgraded (57.1%) than upgraded (42.9%). Interobserver concordance was very good (κ weighted = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Pathology review of prostate biopsies is infrequently requested by clinicians in the Netherlands but in a non-negligible minority of patients with localised PCa the pathology review led to a change in prognostic risk group which might impact their treatment.

Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: A nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although urinary adverse events after treatment of prostate cancer (CaP) are common, population-based studies on functional outcomes are scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the occurrence of urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED) in daily clinical practice using a nationwide Dutch cohort of patients with localized or locally advanced CaP. BASIC PROCEDURES: Patients were invited to complete the EPIC-26 questionnaire before treatment (baseline) and at 12 and 24 months after diagnosis. We calculated the mean EPIC-26 domain scores, stratified by treatment modality (i.e., radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy, and no active treatment), and the proportions of patients with UI (defined as ≥ 2 pads per day) and ED (defined as erections not firm enough for sexual intercourse). Logistic regression modeling was used to explore the factors related to UI and ED after surgery. MAIN FINDINGS: In total 1,759 patients participated in this study. Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy experienced clinically relevant worsening in the urinary incontinence domain. After excluding patients who reported UI at baseline, 15% of patients with prostatectomy reported UI 24 months after diagnosis. Only comorbidity was associated with UI in surgically treated patients. Regardless of treatment, patients reported a clinically significant reduced sexual functioning over time. Before treatment, 54% of patients reported ED. Among the 46% remaining patients, 87% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy reported ED 24 months after diagnosis, 41% after radiotherapy, and 46% in patients without active treatment. Bilateral nerve-sparing surgery was the only factor associated with ED after 24 months. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: UI and ED frequently occur in patients with localized and locally advanced CaP, in particular after radical prostatectomy. The higher occurrence rate of UI and ED, compared with clinical trial participants, supports the importance of real-world data, which can be used for local treatment recommendations and patient information, but also to evaluate effects of future initiatives, such as treatment centralization and research aimed at improving functional outcomes.

Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database. METHODS: We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach. We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach. RESULTS: The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.