腹腔镜诊断子宫内膜异位症的临床实践指南和方法的比较:范围审查。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0310593
Frank Zela-Coila, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Janeth N Nuñez-Lupaca, Milagros Aparicio-Curazi, Sergio Goicochea-Lugo
{"title":"腹腔镜诊断子宫内膜异位症的临床实践指南和方法的比较:范围审查。","authors":"Frank Zela-Coila, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Janeth N Nuñez-Lupaca, Milagros Aparicio-Curazi, Sergio Goicochea-Lugo","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0310593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) highlight that laparoscopy is often used in the treatment of endometriosis, its diagnostic usefulness is not fully defined. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for endometriosis that address the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in reproductive age women, and describe the recommendations and methods used to assess diagnostic test questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of 5 databases (Trip Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMABSE) and websites of guideline development organizations and compilers was conducted from 2017 to 2023. A descriptive analysis of the recommendations was performed and the quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE-II instrument.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four CPGs were included in the review, all exhibiting adequate methodological quality (scores ranging from 66.7% to 91.0%). Regarding the use of laparoscopy for endometriosis diagnosis, discrepancies in recommendations were observed. Two guidelines advised against it, one recommended either laparoscopy or medical empirical treatment, and one favored its use. GRADE guidance was employed for evidence assessment, but only one guideline transparently reported the certainty of evidence and the evidence-to-decision framework process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variability in recommendations among different CPGs were found. To keep in mind, discrepancies arise from differing prioritizations of the assessment of clinical impact in patient important outcomes and methodological approaches. This underscores the need for more standardized and transparent guideline development processes, particularly in addressing the clinical utility of diagnostic tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0310593"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11633989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Frank Zela-Coila, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Janeth N Nuñez-Lupaca, Milagros Aparicio-Curazi, Sergio Goicochea-Lugo\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0310593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) highlight that laparoscopy is often used in the treatment of endometriosis, its diagnostic usefulness is not fully defined. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for endometriosis that address the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in reproductive age women, and describe the recommendations and methods used to assess diagnostic test questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of 5 databases (Trip Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMABSE) and websites of guideline development organizations and compilers was conducted from 2017 to 2023. A descriptive analysis of the recommendations was performed and the quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE-II instrument.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four CPGs were included in the review, all exhibiting adequate methodological quality (scores ranging from 66.7% to 91.0%). Regarding the use of laparoscopy for endometriosis diagnosis, discrepancies in recommendations were observed. Two guidelines advised against it, one recommended either laparoscopy or medical empirical treatment, and one favored its use. GRADE guidance was employed for evidence assessment, but only one guideline transparently reported the certainty of evidence and the evidence-to-decision framework process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variability in recommendations among different CPGs were found. To keep in mind, discrepancies arise from differing prioritizations of the assessment of clinical impact in patient important outcomes and methodological approaches. This underscores the need for more standardized and transparent guideline development processes, particularly in addressing the clinical utility of diagnostic tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"19 12\",\"pages\":\"e0310593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11633989/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310593\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310593","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:尽管临床实践指南(CPG)强调腹腔镜检查经常用于子宫内膜异位症的治疗,但其诊断用途尚未完全确定。我们的目的是评估子宫内膜异位症的cpg质量,以解决育龄妇女腹腔镜诊断的使用问题,并描述用于评估诊断测试问题的建议和方法。方法:综合检索2017 - 2023年Trip Database、MEDLINE/PubMed、Web of Science、SCOPUS、EMABSE 5个数据库以及指南制定机构和编纂者网站。对建议进行了描述性分析,并使用AGREE-II工具评估了指南的质量。结果:4个cpg纳入综述,均表现出足够的方法学质量(得分范围为66.7%至91.0%)。关于使用腹腔镜诊断子宫内膜异位症,观察到不同的建议。有两份指南反对它,一份建议要么进行腹腔镜检查,要么进行医学实证治疗,另一份则赞成使用它。GRADE指南用于证据评估,但只有一个指南透明地报告了证据的确定性和证据到决策的框架过程。结论:不同CPGs的推荐值存在差异。要记住,差异来自于对患者重要结果和方法方法的临床影响评估的不同优先级。这强调需要更标准化和透明的指南制定过程,特别是在处理诊断测试的临床应用方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.

Introduction: Although Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) highlight that laparoscopy is often used in the treatment of endometriosis, its diagnostic usefulness is not fully defined. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for endometriosis that address the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in reproductive age women, and describe the recommendations and methods used to assess diagnostic test questions.

Methods: A comprehensive search of 5 databases (Trip Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMABSE) and websites of guideline development organizations and compilers was conducted from 2017 to 2023. A descriptive analysis of the recommendations was performed and the quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE-II instrument.

Results: Four CPGs were included in the review, all exhibiting adequate methodological quality (scores ranging from 66.7% to 91.0%). Regarding the use of laparoscopy for endometriosis diagnosis, discrepancies in recommendations were observed. Two guidelines advised against it, one recommended either laparoscopy or medical empirical treatment, and one favored its use. GRADE guidance was employed for evidence assessment, but only one guideline transparently reported the certainty of evidence and the evidence-to-decision framework process.

Conclusions: Variability in recommendations among different CPGs were found. To keep in mind, discrepancies arise from differing prioritizations of the assessment of clinical impact in patient important outcomes and methodological approaches. This underscores the need for more standardized and transparent guideline development processes, particularly in addressing the clinical utility of diagnostic tests.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信