Quality Assessment of Asthma Clinical Practice Guidelines A Systematic Appraisal


Por: Acuna-Izcaray, A, Sanchez-Angarita, E, Plaza, V, Rodrigo, G, de Oca, MM, Gich, I, Bonfill, X, Alonso-Coello, P

Publicada: 1 ago 2013
Resumen:
Background: The quality and potential impact of available clinical guidelines for asthma management have not been systematically evaluated. We, therefore, evaluated the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for asthma. Methods: We performed a systematic search of scientific literature published between 2000 and 2010 to identify and select CPGs related to asthma management. We searched guideline databases, guideline developers' websites, and the MEDLINE database of the US National Library of Medicine. Four independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We calculated the overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Eighteen CPGs published between the years 2000 and 2010 were selected from a total of 1,005 references. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were: scope and purpose, 44.1% (range: 10.0%-79.0%); stakeholder involvement, 33.8% (range: 4.0%-66.0%); rigor of development, 32.4% (range: 8.0%-64.0%); clarity and presentation, 52.1% (range: 17.0%-85.0%); applicability, 21.1% (range: 3%-55%); and editorial independence, 25% (range: 0%-58%). None of the appraised guidelines had a score >60% (recommended). One-half of the appraised guidelines were recommended with modifications (nine of 18) or not recommended (nine of 18) for use in clinical practice. We observed improvement over time in overall quality of the guidelines (P = .01; guidelines published in the period 2001-2006 vs 2007-2009). Conclusions: The quality of guidelines for asthma care is low, although it has improved over time. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that can be used as reliable tools for clinical decision-making in this field.

Filiaciones:
Acuna-Izcaray, A:
 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Ctr Med Docente Trinidad, Serv Neumonol, Caracas, Venezuela

 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Hosp Univ Caracas, Caracas, Venezuela

Sanchez-Angarita, E:
 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Ctr Med Docente Trinidad, Serv Neumonol, Caracas, Venezuela

 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Hosp Univ Caracas, Caracas, Venezuela

Plaza, V:
 Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Hosp Santa Creu & St Pau, Serv Neumol, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain

Rodrigo, G:
 Hosp Cent Fuerzas Armadas, Dept Emergencia, Montevideo, Uruguay

de Oca, MM:
 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Ctr Med Docente Trinidad, Serv Neumonol, Caracas, Venezuela

 Cent Univ Venezuela, Fac Med, Hosp Univ Caracas, Caracas, Venezuela

Gich, I:
 Inst Biomed Res IIB St Pau, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Barcelona 08041, Spain

Bonfill, X:
 Inst Biomed Res IIB St Pau, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Barcelona 08041, Spain

Alonso-Coello, P:
 Inst Biomed Res IIB St Pau, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Barcelona 08041, Spain
ISSN: 00123692





CHEST
Editorial
ELSEVIER, RADARWEG 29, 1043 NX AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, Estados Unidos America
Tipo de documento: Article
Volumen: 144 Número: 2
Páginas: 390-397
WOS Id: 000323021400010
ID de PubMed: 23450305

MÉTRICAS