评估加拿大泌尿学会指南的方法学异质性:采用GRADE方法(2018-2023)。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Maylynn Ding, Vardhil Gandhi, Daniel A Gonzalez-Padilla, Philipp Dahm
{"title":"评估加拿大泌尿学会指南的方法学异质性:采用GRADE方法(2018-2023)。","authors":"Maylynn Ding, Vardhil Gandhi, Daniel A Gonzalez-Padilla, Philipp Dahm","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) has a longstanding tradition of developing evidence-based guidelines. We conducted this study to assess the heterogeneity of the CUA's guideline methodology for developing recommendations from 2018-2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included guidelines from the CUA website from 2018-2023. Two independent reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted all data points and categorized the reported methodologic approaches for formulating recommendations and rating the evidence. We performed descriptive statistics only.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 23 guideline documents with a total of 654 recommendations. The median number of recommendations per guideline was 25 (interquartile range 17; 35). Seven guidelines (187 recommendations) used a modified Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine approach for both the strength of recommendations and the levels of evidence, and eight guidelines (177 recommendations) reported the use of GRADE both for the strength of recommendations and the certainty of evidence. Of the remaining eight guidelines, four (154 recommendations) blended the GRADE approach for the strength of recommendations with modified Oxford levels of evidence, and the remaining four combined the American Urological Association's approach to recommendations with Oxford levels of evidence (n=1), GRADE certainty of evidence (n=2), or used GRADE but made no recommendations (n=1).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CUA guidelines have been marked by considerable methodologic heterogeneity that may confuse end users. Continued advancement in the CUA's approach to guideline development will facilitate greater collaboration and resource sharing, thereby supporting the CUA's mission of promoting high-quality, evidence-based care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the methodologic heterogeneity of Canadian Urological Association guidelines: Adoption of the GRADE approach (2018-2023).\",\"authors\":\"Maylynn Ding, Vardhil Gandhi, Daniel A Gonzalez-Padilla, Philipp Dahm\",\"doi\":\"10.5489/cuaj.8926\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) has a longstanding tradition of developing evidence-based guidelines. We conducted this study to assess the heterogeneity of the CUA's guideline methodology for developing recommendations from 2018-2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included guidelines from the CUA website from 2018-2023. Two independent reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted all data points and categorized the reported methodologic approaches for formulating recommendations and rating the evidence. We performed descriptive statistics only.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 23 guideline documents with a total of 654 recommendations. The median number of recommendations per guideline was 25 (interquartile range 17; 35). Seven guidelines (187 recommendations) used a modified Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine approach for both the strength of recommendations and the levels of evidence, and eight guidelines (177 recommendations) reported the use of GRADE both for the strength of recommendations and the certainty of evidence. Of the remaining eight guidelines, four (154 recommendations) blended the GRADE approach for the strength of recommendations with modified Oxford levels of evidence, and the remaining four combined the American Urological Association's approach to recommendations with Oxford levels of evidence (n=1), GRADE certainty of evidence (n=2), or used GRADE but made no recommendations (n=1).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CUA guidelines have been marked by considerable methodologic heterogeneity that may confuse end users. Continued advancement in the CUA's approach to guideline development will facilitate greater collaboration and resource sharing, thereby supporting the CUA's mission of promoting high-quality, evidence-based care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8926\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8926","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:加拿大泌尿学会(CUA)在制定循证指南方面有着悠久的传统。我们进行了这项研究,以评估2018-2023年美国医学协会制定建议的指南方法的异质性。方法:我们纳入了2018-2023年CUA网站的指南。两名独立的、重复的审稿人对所有数据点进行了提取,并对报告的方法方法进行了分类,以制定建议和评估证据。我们只进行了描述性统计。结果:我们纳入了23篇指南文献,共计654条建议。每份指南的推荐数中位数为25(四分位数间距为17;35)。7项指南(187项建议)在推荐的强度和证据的水平上使用了改良的牛津循证医学中心方法,8项指南(177项建议)在推荐的强度和证据的确定性上都使用了GRADE。在剩下的8项指南中,4项(154项建议)将推荐强度的GRADE方法与修改后的牛津证据水平相结合,其余4项将美国泌尿学会的推荐方法与牛津证据水平(n=1)、GRADE证据确定性(n=2)相结合,或使用GRADE但未提出建议(n=1)。结论:CUA指南在方法学上存在相当大的异质性,这可能会使最终用户感到困惑。美国医学会指南制定方法的持续进步将促进更大的合作和资源共享,从而支持美国医学会促进高质量循证护理的使命。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the methodologic heterogeneity of Canadian Urological Association guidelines: Adoption of the GRADE approach (2018-2023).

Introduction: The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) has a longstanding tradition of developing evidence-based guidelines. We conducted this study to assess the heterogeneity of the CUA's guideline methodology for developing recommendations from 2018-2023.

Methods: We included guidelines from the CUA website from 2018-2023. Two independent reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted all data points and categorized the reported methodologic approaches for formulating recommendations and rating the evidence. We performed descriptive statistics only.

Results: We included 23 guideline documents with a total of 654 recommendations. The median number of recommendations per guideline was 25 (interquartile range 17; 35). Seven guidelines (187 recommendations) used a modified Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine approach for both the strength of recommendations and the levels of evidence, and eight guidelines (177 recommendations) reported the use of GRADE both for the strength of recommendations and the certainty of evidence. Of the remaining eight guidelines, four (154 recommendations) blended the GRADE approach for the strength of recommendations with modified Oxford levels of evidence, and the remaining four combined the American Urological Association's approach to recommendations with Oxford levels of evidence (n=1), GRADE certainty of evidence (n=2), or used GRADE but made no recommendations (n=1).

Conclusions: CUA guidelines have been marked by considerable methodologic heterogeneity that may confuse end users. Continued advancement in the CUA's approach to guideline development will facilitate greater collaboration and resource sharing, thereby supporting the CUA's mission of promoting high-quality, evidence-based care.

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
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
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