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

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.

[1]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance , 2022, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[2]  P. Tugwell,et al.  A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations. , 2021, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  E. Akl,et al.  Getting trustworthy guidelines into the hands of decision-makers and supporting their consideration of contextual factors for implementation globally: recommendation mapping of COVID-19 guidelines , 2021, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

[4]  W. Wiercioch.  Priority Topics for Panel Engagement in Health Guideline Development , 2020 .

[5]  M. Murad,et al.  What does expert opinion in guidelines mean? a meta-epidemiological study , 2017, Evidence-Based Medicine.

[6]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Guideline panels should seldom make good practice statements: guidance from the GRADE Working Group. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  G. Guyatt,et al.  World Health Organization strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence (study quality) are frequent and often inconsistent with GRADE guidance. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Romina Brignardello-Petersen,et al.  Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise , 2014, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[9]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The Endocrine Society guidelines: when the confidence cart goes before the evidence horse. , 2013, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[10]  A. Qaseem,et al.  Guidelines International Network: Toward International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Michelle E. Kho,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[13]  R. Meyers,et al.  In vivo quantification of formulated and chemically modified small interfering RNA by heating-in-Triton quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (HIT qRT-PCR) , 2010, Silence.

[14]  G. Guyatt,et al.  What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  A. Oxman,et al.  Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 7. Deciding what evidence to include , 2006, Health research policy and systems.

[17]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. , 2003, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[18]  T Harding,et al.  What about the WHO guidelines? , 1995, BMJ.

[19]  M. Tirani,et al.  [Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise]. , 2015, Recenti progressi in medicina.