Methodological and reporting quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for prenatal care on nutritional counselling in high-income countries: A systematic review

IF 0.9 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN Pub Date : 2025-07-22 DOI:10.1016/j.semerg.2025.102550

M.M. Rivas-Arquillo , M.R. Román-Gálvez , C. Amezcua-Prieto , A. Bueno-Cavanillas , K.S. Khan , N. Cano-Ibáñez

{"title":"Methodological and reporting quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for prenatal care on nutritional counselling in high-income countries: A systematic review","authors":"M.M. Rivas-Arquillo , M.R. Román-Gálvez , C. Amezcua-Prieto , A. Bueno-Cavanillas , K.S. Khan , N. Cano-Ibáñez","doi":"10.1016/j.semerg.2025.102550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for prenatal care from high-income countries (HIC) on nutritional counselling.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following registration in PROSPERO (CRD42023397756), searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar covered the last decade. CPGs for prenatal care from HIC with nutritional counselling, without language restriction, were selected. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The methodological and reporting quality was evaluated in institutional CPGs and professional societies using the AGREE II tool (score range 22–161), while reporting quality was evaluated with RIGHT tool (score range 0–35).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 2177 citations were screened, resulting in 18 CPGs recommendations on nutritional counselling (published 2014–2024), primarily from Europe (<em>n</em>  =2, 11.1%). High-quality CPGs were 6 (33.4%) using AGREE II (Spain, Australia, UK-NICE, U.S.A.-ACOG, WHO, and Denmark) and 4 (22.2%) using RIGHT (Spain, Australia, UK-NICE, and WHO). The AGREE II and RIGHT observed score ranges were 51.5–145 and 7.5–28, respectively. Mean scores for institutional CPGs were higher than those for professional societies (AGREE 107.4±26.8 vs. 86.2±26.1, <em>p</em>      =0.0201). A positive correlation was observed between AGREE II and RIGHT scores (<em>r</em>  <!-->0.94).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The methodological and reporting quality of CPGs for prenatal care with nutritional counselling from HIC varied with institutional CPGs scoring significantly better than those from professional societies. These findings underscore the need for standardized development and reporting of CPGs to ensure clear, actionable, and evidence-based nutritional advice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":53212,"journal":{"name":"Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN","volume":"51 7","pages":"Article 102550"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1138359325001030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for prenatal care from high-income countries (HIC) on nutritional counselling.

Methods

Following registration in PROSPERO (CRD42023397756), searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar covered the last decade. CPGs for prenatal care from HIC with nutritional counselling, without language restriction, were selected. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The methodological and reporting quality was evaluated in institutional CPGs and professional societies using the AGREE II tool (score range 22–161), while reporting quality was evaluated with RIGHT tool (score range 0–35).

Results

A total of 2177 citations were screened, resulting in 18 CPGs recommendations on nutritional counselling (published 2014–2024), primarily from Europe (n = 11, 61.1%) and the USA (n = 2, 11.1%). High-quality CPGs were 6 (33.4%) using AGREE II (Spain, Australia, UK-NICE, U.S.A.-ACOG, WHO, and Denmark) and 4 (22.2%) using RIGHT (Spain, Australia, UK-NICE, and WHO). The AGREE II and RIGHT observed score ranges were 51.5–145 and 7.5–28, respectively. Mean scores for institutional CPGs were higher than those for professional societies (AGREE 107.4 ± 26.8 vs. 86.2 ± 26.1, p = 0.0218; RIGHT 19.1 ± 6.2 vs. 14.1 ± 6.1, p = 0.0201). A positive correlation was observed between AGREE II and RIGHT scores (r = 0.94).

Conclusions

The methodological and reporting quality of CPGs for prenatal care with nutritional counselling from HIC varied with institutional CPGs scoring significantly better than those from professional societies. These findings underscore the need for standardized development and reporting of CPGs to ensure clear, actionable, and evidence-based nutritional advice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

高收入国家营养咨询产前护理临床实践指南的方法学和报告质量：系统评价

目的评价高收入国家（HIC）产前保健营养咨询临床实践指南（CPGs）的方法学和报告质量。方法在PROSPERO （CRD42023397756）注册后，在PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和b谷歌Scholar中检索过去十年。选择来自HIC的产前护理CPGs，并提供营养咨询，无语言限制。数据提取和质量评估独立进行，一式两份，差异由第三方审稿人解决。在机构cpg和专业学会中，使用AGREE II工具（评分范围22-161）评估方法和报告质量，而使用RIGHT工具（评分范围0-35）评估报告质量。结果共筛选2177篇文献，获得18篇CPGs营养咨询建议（2014-2024年发表），主要来自欧洲（n = 11, 61.1%）和美国（n = 2, 11.1%）。高质量cpg有6个（33.4%）使用了AGREE II（西班牙、澳大利亚、英国- nice、美国- acog、WHO和丹麦），4个（22.2%）使用了RIGHT（西班牙、澳大利亚、英国- nice和WHO）。AGREE II和RIGHT观察得分范围分别为51.5-145分和7.5-28分。机构CPGs的平均得分高于专业学会(AGREE 107.4±26.8比86.2±26.1,p = 0.0218；右19.1±6.2 vs. 14.1±6.1,p = 0.0201)。AGREE II评分与RIGHT评分呈正相关（r = 0.94）。结论HIC产前保健营养咨询CPGs的方法和报告质量各不相同，机构CPGs评分明显优于专业协会CPGs评分。这些发现强调了标准化制定和报告CPGs的必要性，以确保明确、可操作和基于证据的营养建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊