J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Mar 7:S0895-4356(21)00077-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.005. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
KEY FINDINGS: Despite clear scope, most guidelines for SARS CoV-2 infections and for other care in the context of COVID-19 fell short of basic methodological standards. Only 4% were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). Patients were included in the development of one guideline. A process for regular updates was described in 14%. What this adds to what is known: Our study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. What is the implication/what should change now: An insufficient consideration of appropriate methodologies in the guideline development process could lead to misleading information, uncertainty among the professionals, and potentially harmful actions for patients. This paper provides an important benchmark for the future assessment of the quality of COVID-19 guidelines. Abstract Objective: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review from February 1st until April 27th, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting.
RESULTS: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline.
CONCLUSION: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.
PMID:33691153 | DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.005
