for the Chronic Diseases and Informed Decisions (CHRONIDE) Group IMPORTANCE As the rate of publication of new and sometimes conflicting medical research increases, clinicians rely heavily on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform practice. However, CPGs are of widely variable quality, and there are no existing objective measures to rate the quality of CPGs.OBJECTIVE To systematically assess 421 CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II (AGREE-II) tool and elucidate the factors associated with quality of CPGs.EVIDENCE REVIEW MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 12 websites for CPGs were searched for CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care published between January 1, 2011, and August 30, 2017. The assessment of the quality of CPGs was performed by 3 appraisers using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II instrument. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with quality of CPGs.FINDINGS Of the 421 CPGs reviewed, 23.5% (99) were classified as high quality. Among included guidelines, clarity of presentation (70%) and scope and purpose (61%) had the highest median AGREE-II scores. The domains with the lowest median scores were applicability (22%) and rigor of development (33%). Factors associated with high-quality CPGs included having more than 20 authors (odds ratio, 9.08; 95% CI, 3.35-24.62), development at governmental institutions (odds ratio, 10.38; 95% CI, 2.72-39.60), and reporting funding (odds ratio, 10.34; 95% CI,. Year of publication, region, guideline version, and scope were not associated with quality among included CPGs.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Primary care professionals and policymakers should be aware that CPGs in primary care are of widely variable quality, with less than 25% of included CPGs rated as high quality. High-quality CPGs were associated with a higher number of authors, governmental institutions, and the report of funding. Region of origin was not associated with quality of CPGs, which suggests that the improvement of the quality of CPGs should be an international concern.

BackgroundAnnually, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) kill 38 million people worldwide, with low and middle-income countries accounting for three-quarters of these deaths. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are fundamental to improving NCD management. The present study evaluated the methodological rigor and transparency of Brazilian CPGs that recommend pharmacological treatment for the most prevalent NCDs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for CPGs of the following NCDs: asthma, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease and/or stable angina, dementia, depression, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. CPGs comprising pharmacological treatment recommendations were included. No language or year restrictions were applied. CPGs were excluded if they were merely for local use and referred to NCDs not listed above. CPG quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument, version II (AGREE II).Main Findings“Scope and purpose” and “clarity and presentation” domains received the highest scores. Sixteen of 26 CPGs were classified as low quality, and none were classified as high overall quality. No CPG was recommended without modification (77% were not recommended at all). After 2009, 2 domain scores (“rigor of development” and “clarity and presentation”) increased (61% and 73%, respectively). However, “rigor of development” was still rated < 30%.ConclusionBrazilian healthcare professionals should be concerned with CPG quality for the treatment of selected NCDs. Features that undermined AGREE II scores included the lack of a multidisciplinary team for the development group, no consideration of patients’ preferences, insufficient information regarding literature searches, lack of selection criteria, formulating recommendations, authors’ conflict of interest disclosures, and funding body influence.

No abstract

Several CPGs for SAP were developed without the desired methodological rigour or transparency. Synthesis of recommendations for best-evaluated CPGs provides a broad approach owing to the complementarity of the recommendations.

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) constitute an important tool for the promotion of evidence-based health, which may improve healthcare outcomes for individuals with NCDs. Studies have shown that many CPGs have poor or moderate quality. Therefore, the aim of the proposed study is to systematically identify and appraise CPGs for pharmacological treatment of the most prevalent NCDs in primary care.MethodsA comprehensive literature search will be conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library. Twelve databases specific to CPGs will also be searched. Three appraisers will assess the quality of the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument, version II. The AGREE II results will be checked for discrepancies. Differences between scores equal than or greater to 2 will be considered discrepant and the appraisers will decide the final score by consensus. If no consensus is reached, a fourth appraiser will decide the score. According to the AGREE II User’s Manual, the six domains of the instrument are independent. Thus, each domain score will be calculated by the sum of the individual item scores and scaling the total as a percentage of the maximum possible score for the domain.DiscussionThe AGREE II instrument will be applied to evaluate the quality of CPGs and contribute to enhance the discussion and development of guidelines of high quality. The findings will be submitted for publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed scientific journals and will also be disseminated at international conferences.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043364 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0621-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo assess similarities and differences in the recommended sequence of strategies among the most relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of depression in adults with inadequate response to first-line treatment.Data sourcesWe performed a systematic review of the literature spanning January 2011 to August 2020 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and 12 databases recognised as CPGs repositories. CPGs quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II).Study selectionThe eligibility criteria were CPGs that described pharmacological recommendations for treating depression for individuals aged 18 years or older in outpatient care setting. We included CPGs considered of high-quality (≥80% in domain 3 of AGREE II) or recognised as clinically relevant.Data extractionTwo independent researchers extracted recommendations for patients who did not respond to first-line pharmacological treatment from the selected CPGs.ResultsWe included 46 CPGs and selected 8, of which 5 were considered high quality (≥80% in domain 3 of AGREE II) and 3 were recognised as clinically relevant. Three CPGs did not define inadequate response to treatment and 3 did not establish a clear sequence of strategies. The duration of treatment needed to determine that a patient had not responded was not explicit in 3 CPGs and was discordant in 5 CPGs. Most CPGs agree in reassessing the diagnosis, assessing the presence of comorbidities, adherence to treatment, and increase dosage as first steps. All CPGs recommend psychotherapy, switching antidepressants, and considering augmentation/combining antidepressants.ConclusionRelevant CPGs present shortcomings in recommendations for non-responders to first-line antidepressant treatment including absence and divergencies in definition of inadequate response and sequence of recommended strategies. Overall, most relevant CPGs recommend reassessing the diagnosis, evaluate comorbidities, adherence to treatment, increase dosage of antidepressants, and psychotherapy as first steps.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016043364.

No abstract

Falls are the second leading cause of accidental and unintentional injury deaths worldwide. Inpatient falls in hospital settings are likely to prolong the length of stay of patients in nearly 6.3 days, leading to increased hospitalization costs. The causes of fall incidents in healthcare facilities are multifactorial in nature and certain medications use could be associated with these incidents. This review seeks to critically evaluate the available literature regarding the relationship between inpatient falls and medication use. A comprehensive search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Lilacs with no time restriction. The search was filtered using English, Spanish or Portuguese languages. Our study evaluated medication use and inpatients falls that effectively happen, considering all ages and populations. An assessment of bias and quality of the studies was carried out using an adapted tool from the literature. The drugs were classified according to the Anatomic Therapeutics Chemical Code. The search strategy retrieved 563 records, among which 23 met the eligibility criteria; ninety three different pharmacological subgroups were associated with fall incidents. Our critical review suggests that the use of central nervous system drugs (including anxiolytics; hypnotics and sedatives; antipsychotics; opioids; antiepileptics and antidepressants) has a greater likelihood of causing inpatient falls. A weak relationship was found between other pharmacological subgroups, such as diuretics, cardiovascular system-related medications, and inpatient fall. Remarkably, several problems of quality were encountered with regard to the eligible studies. Among such quality problems included retrospective design, the grouping of more than one medication in the same statistical analysis, limited external validity, problems related to medication classifications and description of potential confounders.