参考文献支持产科绿顶指南的建议:RCOG临床指南概述。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Halime Meryem Soylu, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, Suneet P Chauhan, Benjamin J F Huntley
{"title":"参考文献支持产科绿顶指南的建议:RCOG临床指南概述。","authors":"Halime Meryem Soylu, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, Suneet P Chauhan, Benjamin J F Huntley","doi":"10.1055/a-2601-8900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Green-top Guidelines (GTGs) by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) guide clinical practices similar to Practice Bulletins (PBs) by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). Previous analyses reveal that most recommendations lack Grade A evidence and are not based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This descriptive study evaluates the quality of evidence supporting RCOG Obstetrical recommendations.We reviewed obstetrical RCOG GTGs available as of September 2024, checking each citation in PubMed for RCT status. Quality assessments were not made independently. The senior author verified a random 10% of the data (B.J.F.H.). Data were recorded and summarized in Excel.RCOG lists 37 obstetrical GTGs with 1,861 recommendations. About 1,288 (69%) of recommendations are supported by 3,674 references. A total of 43% of GTGs rely on consensus and expert opinion. When omitting recommendations based on expert opinion, 98 (9%) of RCOG recommendations are Grade A (based on high-quality evidence), and of the cited references, 5% of GTGs are Evidence Level 1 + + (highest quality), while 7% are RCTs.Among the recommendations, 69% of GTGs have identifiable references. However, 43% of GTG references are nonanalytical studies or expert opinions. Our findings highlight the need for more high-quality evidence in guidelines and suggest further research in evidence-based obstetrical care. · Of 1,861 obstetrical recommendations, 69% cite references, but 43% rely on expert opinion.. · Only 9% of the GTGs meet Grade A standards, showing limited high-quality references.. · About 43% of the guidelines are based on clinical experience, with 5% having the highest evidence strength.. · Only 7% of references come from RCTs.. · The research highlights the need for stronger, evidence-based guidelines..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"References Supporting Recommendations in Obstetrical Green Top Guidelines: An Overview of RCOG Clinical Guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Halime Meryem Soylu, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, Suneet P Chauhan, Benjamin J F Huntley\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2601-8900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Green-top Guidelines (GTGs) by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) guide clinical practices similar to Practice Bulletins (PBs) by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). Previous analyses reveal that most recommendations lack Grade A evidence and are not based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This descriptive study evaluates the quality of evidence supporting RCOG Obstetrical recommendations.We reviewed obstetrical RCOG GTGs available as of September 2024, checking each citation in PubMed for RCT status. Quality assessments were not made independently. The senior author verified a random 10% of the data (B.J.F.H.). Data were recorded and summarized in Excel.RCOG lists 37 obstetrical GTGs with 1,861 recommendations. About 1,288 (69%) of recommendations are supported by 3,674 references. A total of 43% of GTGs rely on consensus and expert opinion. When omitting recommendations based on expert opinion, 98 (9%) of RCOG recommendations are Grade A (based on high-quality evidence), and of the cited references, 5% of GTGs are Evidence Level 1 + + (highest quality), while 7% are RCTs.Among the recommendations, 69% of GTGs have identifiable references. However, 43% of GTG references are nonanalytical studies or expert opinions. Our findings highlight the need for more high-quality evidence in guidelines and suggest further research in evidence-based obstetrical care. · Of 1,861 obstetrical recommendations, 69% cite references, but 43% rely on expert opinion.. · Only 9% of the GTGs meet Grade A standards, showing limited high-quality references.. · About 43% of the guidelines are based on clinical experience, with 5% having the highest evidence strength.. · Only 7% of references come from RCTs.. · The research highlights the need for stronger, evidence-based guidelines..</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2601-8900\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2601-8900","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:英国皇家妇产科学院(RCOG)的绿顶指南(gtg)指导临床实践,类似于美国妇产科学院(ACOG)的实践公告(PBs)。先前的分析显示,大多数建议缺乏A级证据,并且不是基于随机临床试验(rct)本描述性研究评估支持RCOG产科建议的证据质量。研究设计:我们回顾了截至2024年9月的产科RCOG gtg,检查PubMed中每条引用的RCT状态。质量评估不是独立进行的。资深作者随机验证了10%的数据(B.J.F.H.)。数据在Excel中记录和汇总。结果:RCOG列出37个产科gtg和1861条建议。1288条(69%)建议得到了3674篇参考文献的支持。43%的gtg依赖于共识和专家意见。当忽略基于专家意见的建议时,98(9%)的RCOG建议是A级(基于高质量的证据),在引用的参考文献中,5%的gtg是证据等级1++(最高质量),而7%是随机对照试验。结论:在推荐的GTGs中,69%有可识别的参考文献。然而,43%的GTG参考文献是非分析性研究或专家意见。我们的研究结果强调了指南中需要更多高质量的证据,并建议进一步研究循证产科护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
References Supporting Recommendations in Obstetrical Green Top Guidelines: An Overview of RCOG Clinical Guidelines.

Green-top Guidelines (GTGs) by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) guide clinical practices similar to Practice Bulletins (PBs) by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). Previous analyses reveal that most recommendations lack Grade A evidence and are not based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This descriptive study evaluates the quality of evidence supporting RCOG Obstetrical recommendations.We reviewed obstetrical RCOG GTGs available as of September 2024, checking each citation in PubMed for RCT status. Quality assessments were not made independently. The senior author verified a random 10% of the data (B.J.F.H.). Data were recorded and summarized in Excel.RCOG lists 37 obstetrical GTGs with 1,861 recommendations. About 1,288 (69%) of recommendations are supported by 3,674 references. A total of 43% of GTGs rely on consensus and expert opinion. When omitting recommendations based on expert opinion, 98 (9%) of RCOG recommendations are Grade A (based on high-quality evidence), and of the cited references, 5% of GTGs are Evidence Level 1 + + (highest quality), while 7% are RCTs.Among the recommendations, 69% of GTGs have identifiable references. However, 43% of GTG references are nonanalytical studies or expert opinions. Our findings highlight the need for more high-quality evidence in guidelines and suggest further research in evidence-based obstetrical care. · Of 1,861 obstetrical recommendations, 69% cite references, but 43% rely on expert opinion.. · Only 9% of the GTGs meet Grade A standards, showing limited high-quality references.. · About 43% of the guidelines are based on clinical experience, with 5% having the highest evidence strength.. · Only 7% of references come from RCTs.. · The research highlights the need for stronger, evidence-based 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
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
×
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