Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F22%3A00126087" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/22:00126087 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/24/bmjebm-2021-111866.citation-tools" target="_blank" >https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/24/bmjebm-2021-111866.citation-tools</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866" target="_blank" >10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

Original language description

Objectives To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. Design and setting Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. Main outcome measures We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. Conclusions Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

30218 - General and internal medicine

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2022

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE

ISSN

2515-446X

e-ISSN

2515-4478

Volume of the periodical

27

Issue of the periodical within the volume

6

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

9

Pages from-to

361-369

UT code for WoS article

000783808300001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85128882586