0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Heart Failure Using the AGREE II Tool

      , , , , , ,
      The American Journal of Cardiology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for heart failure management have been published to provide the best practices regarding the use of foundational therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality in this patient population. However, a critical appraisal of these heart failure guidelines has not been performed. This systematic review aimed to assess the methodological quality of current CPGs in the management of patients with heart failure. A comprehensive search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted to identify CPGs published between January 1, 2021 and September 8, 2022. Any CPGs published in the last 2 years addressing the management of heart failure were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the CPGs was assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluate II) instrument. The initial search yielded 3,269 citations, of which, 6 CPGs were included. A total of 2 CPGs were each published by the cardiology associations in North America and Asia and 1 each in Europe and South America. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains were 100% for scope and purpose, 71% for stakeholder involvement, 71% for the rigor of development, 100% for clarity of presentation, 43% for applicability, 100% for editorial independence, and 64% for overall assessment. CPG developers would benefit from the use of a standardized approach to the development of CPGs and use the contents of the AGREE II tool to improve the methodological rigor, reporting, and applicability of CPGs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

              The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                The American Journal of Cardiology
                The American Journal of Cardiology
                Elsevier BV
                00029149
                September 2023
                September 2023
                : 202
                : 192-198
                Article
                10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.06.052
                37451063
                b6a1ebc0-422f-4546-b9c7-2ebac734fc5f
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article