Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements
In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

J 2022

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

DEWIDAR, O., T. LOTFI, M. LANGENDAM, E. PARMELLI, Z. SAZ PARKINSON et. al.

Basic information

Original name

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

Authors

DEWIDAR, O., T. LOTFI, M. LANGENDAM, E. PARMELLI, Z. SAZ PARKINSON, K. SOLO, D. K. CHU, J. L. MATHEW, E. A. AKL, R. BRIGNARDELLO-PETERSEN, R. A. MUSTAFA, L. MOJA, A. IORIO, Y. CHI, C. CANELO-AYBAR, T. KREDO, J. KARPUSHEFF, A. F. TURGEON, P. ALONSO-COELLO, W. WIERCIOCH, A. GERRITSEN, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), M. X. ROJAS, P. TUGWELL, V. A. WELCH, K. POTTIE, Z. MUNN, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. FORD, A. STEVENS, J. KHABSA, Z. NASIR, G. I. LEONTIADIS, J. J. MEERPOHL, T. PIGGOTT, A. QASEEM, M. MATTHEWS and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN (guarantor)

Edition

BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, London, BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022, 2515-446X

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

30218 General and internal medicine

Country of publisher

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

URL

Impact factor

Impact factor: 5.800

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14110/22:00126087

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866

UT WoS

000783808300001

Keywords in English

COVID-19; Evidence-Based Practice; Health Services Research

Abstract

V originále

Objectives To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. Design and setting Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. Main outcome measures We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. Conclusions Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Citovat

DEWIDAR, O., T. LOTFI, M. LANGENDAM, E. PARMELLI, Z. SAZ PARKINSON, K. SOLO, D. K. CHU, J. L. MATHEW, E. A. AKL, R. BRIGNARDELLO-PETERSEN, R. A. MUSTAFA, L. MOJA, A. IORIO, Y. CHI, C. CANELO-AYBAR, T. KREDO, J. KARPUSHEFF, A. F. TURGEON, P. ALONSO-COELLO, W. WIERCIOCH, A. GERRITSEN, Miloslav KLUGAR, M. X. ROJAS, P. TUGWELL, V. A. WELCH, K. POTTIE, Z. MUNN, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. FORD, A. STEVENS, J. KHABSA, Z. NASIR, G. I. LEONTIADIS, J. J. MEERPOHL, T. PIGGOTT, A. QASEEM, M. MATTHEWS and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN. Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal. BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. London: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022, vol. 27, No 6, p. 361-369. ISSN 2515-446X. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866.

@article{1861920,
   author = {Dewidar, O. and Lotfi, T. and Langendam, M. and Parmelli, E. and Saz Parkinson, Z. and Solo, K. and Chu, D. K. and Mathew, J. L. and Akl, E. A. and BrignardelloandPetersen, R. and Mustafa, R. A. and Moja, L. and Iorio, A. and Chi, Y. and CaneloandAybar, C. and Kredo, T. and Karpusheff, J. and Turgeon, A. F. and AlonsoandCoello, P. and Wiercioch, W. and Gerritsen, A. and Klugar, Miloslav and Rojas, M. X. and Tugwell, P. and Welch, V. A. and Pottie, K. and Munn, Z. and Nieuwlaat, R. and Ford, N. and Stevens, A. and Khabsa, J. and Nasir, Z. and Leontiadis, G. I. and Meerpohl, J. J. and Piggott, T. and Qaseem, A. and Matthews, M. and Schünemann, H. J.},
   article_location = {London},
   article_number = {6},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866},
   keywords = {COVID-19; Evidence-Based Practice; Health Services Research},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {2515-446X},
   journal = {BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE},
   title = {Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal},
   url = {https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/24/bmjebm-2021-111866.citation-tools},
   volume = {27},
   year = {2022}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1861920
AU  - Dewidar, O. - Lotfi, T. - Langendam, M. - Parmelli, E. - Saz Parkinson, Z. - Solo, K. - Chu, D. K. - Mathew, J. L. - Akl, E. A. - Brignardello-Petersen, R. - Mustafa, R. A. - Moja, L. - Iorio, A. - Chi, Y. - Canelo-Aybar, C. - Kredo, T. - Karpusheff, J. - Turgeon, A. F. - Alonso-Coello, P. - Wiercioch, W. - Gerritsen, A. - Klugar, Miloslav - Rojas, M. X. - Tugwell, P. - Welch, V. A. - Pottie, K. - Munn, Z. - Nieuwlaat, R. - Ford, N. - Stevens, A. - Khabsa, J. - Nasir, Z. - Leontiadis, G. I. - Meerpohl, J. J. - Piggott, T. - Qaseem, A. - Matthews, M. - Schünemann, H. J.
PY  - 2022
TI  - Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal
JF  - BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
VL  - 27
IS  - 6
SP  - 361-369
EP  - 361-369
PB  - BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
SN  - 2515446X
KW  - COVID-19
KW  - Evidence-Based Practice
KW  - Health Services Research
UR  - https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/24/bmjebm-2021-111866.citation-tools
N2  - Objectives To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. Design and setting Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. Main outcome measures We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. Conclusions Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.
ER  -

DEWIDAR, O., T. LOTFI, M. LANGENDAM, E. PARMELLI, Z. SAZ PARKINSON, K. SOLO, D. K. CHU, J. L. MATHEW, E. A. AKL, R. BRIGNARDELLO-PETERSEN, R. A. MUSTAFA, L. MOJA, A. IORIO, Y. CHI, C. CANELO-AYBAR, T. KREDO, J. KARPUSHEFF, A. F. TURGEON, P. ALONSO-COELLO, W. WIERCIOCH, A. GERRITSEN, Miloslav KLUGAR, M. X. ROJAS, P. TUGWELL, V. A. WELCH, K. POTTIE, Z. MUNN, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. FORD, A. STEVENS, J. KHABSA, Z. NASIR, G. I. LEONTIADIS, J. J. MEERPOHL, T. PIGGOTT, A. QASEEM, M. MATTHEWS and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN. Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal. \textit{BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE}. London: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022, vol.~27, No~6, p.~361-369. ISSN~2515-446X. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866.

Detailed Information on Publication Record