肝衰竭诊断与治疗指南质量评估》。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006346
Xia Wang, Meng-Yao Zheng, Hai-Yu He, Hui-Ling Zhu, Ya-Fang Zhao, Yu-Hang Chen, Zhi-Yuan Xu, Jin-Hui Yang, Da-Li Sun
{"title":"肝衰竭诊断与治疗指南质量评估》。","authors":"Xia Wang, Meng-Yao Zheng, Hai-Yu He, Hui-Ling Zhu, Ya-Fang Zhao, Yu-Hang Chen, Zhi-Yuan Xu, Jin-Hui Yang, Da-Li Sun","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and key recommendations of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), furnishing constructive insights for guideline developers and equipping clinicians with evidence-based information to facilitate informed decision-making.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Electronic databases and manual searches from January 2011 to August 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts for eligibility. Fourteen guidelines were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers extracted data and checked by two others. Methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Of the 14 guidelines, only the guidelines established by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Gastroenterology (2023) achieved an aggregate quality score exceeding 60%, thereby meriting clinical recommendations. It emerged that there remains ample room for enhancement in the quality of the guidelines, particularly within the domains of stakeholder engagement, rigor, and applicability. Furthermore, an in-depth scrutiny of common recommendations and supporting evidence drawn from the 10 adult LF guidelines unveiled several key issues: controversy exists in the recommendation, the absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence for recommendations, and a preference in evidence selection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines. Improving these existing problems and controversies will benefit existing clinical practice and will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1624-1632"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392122/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality Evaluation of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Failure.\",\"authors\":\"Xia Wang, Meng-Yao Zheng, Hai-Yu He, Hui-Ling Zhu, Ya-Fang Zhao, Yu-Hang Chen, Zhi-Yuan Xu, Jin-Hui Yang, Da-Li Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and key recommendations of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), furnishing constructive insights for guideline developers and equipping clinicians with evidence-based information to facilitate informed decision-making.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Electronic databases and manual searches from January 2011 to August 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts for eligibility. Fourteen guidelines were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers extracted data and checked by two others. Methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Of the 14 guidelines, only the guidelines established by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Gastroenterology (2023) achieved an aggregate quality score exceeding 60%, thereby meriting clinical recommendations. It emerged that there remains ample room for enhancement in the quality of the guidelines, particularly within the domains of stakeholder engagement, rigor, and applicability. Furthermore, an in-depth scrutiny of common recommendations and supporting evidence drawn from the 10 adult LF guidelines unveiled several key issues: controversy exists in the recommendation, the absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence for recommendations, and a preference in evidence selection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines. Improving these existing problems and controversies will benefit existing clinical practice and will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1624-1632\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392122/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006346\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006346","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在系统评估肝衰竭(LF)诊断和治疗指南的方法学质量和主要建议,为指南制定者提供建设性见解,并为临床医生提供循证信息,以促进知情决策:研究选择:两名审稿人分别独立筛选标题和摘要,然后筛选全文以确定是否符合条件。数据提取与综合:两名审稿人提取数据,并由另外两名审稿人进行核对。使用 "研究与评估指南评估 II "工具对指南的方法学质量进行评估。在 14 项指南中,只有重症医学会和美国胃肠病学会制定的指南(2023 年)的总质量得分超过 60%,因此值得临床推荐。由此可见,指南的质量仍有很大的提升空间,尤其是在利益相关者参与、严谨性和适用性方面。此外,对 10 份成人低频指南中的常见建议和支持证据进行的深入研究揭示了几个关键问题:建议中存在争议、缺乏支持证据和建议中证据使用混乱,以及证据选择偏好:结论:各低频指南在方法学质量和建议方面存在很大差异。改善这些现存的问题和争议将有益于现有的临床实践,也是指南制定者提升指南水平的有效途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality Evaluation of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Failure.

Objectives: This study aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and key recommendations of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), furnishing constructive insights for guideline developers and equipping clinicians with evidence-based information to facilitate informed decision-making.

Data sources: Electronic databases and manual searches from January 2011 to August 2023.

Study selection: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts for eligibility. Fourteen guidelines were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers extracted data and checked by two others. Methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Of the 14 guidelines, only the guidelines established by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Gastroenterology (2023) achieved an aggregate quality score exceeding 60%, thereby meriting clinical recommendations. It emerged that there remains ample room for enhancement in the quality of the guidelines, particularly within the domains of stakeholder engagement, rigor, and applicability. Furthermore, an in-depth scrutiny of common recommendations and supporting evidence drawn from the 10 adult LF guidelines unveiled several key issues: controversy exists in the recommendation, the absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence for recommendations, and a preference in evidence selection.

Conclusions: There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines. Improving these existing problems and controversies will benefit existing clinical practice and will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信