Consistency of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients

Kow, Chia Siang; Capstick, Toby; Zaidi, Syed Tabish Razi; Hasan, Syed Shahzad

doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002388

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, Kow et al identified multiple inconsistencies across CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients especially in comparison with the WHO. [104] …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Amer

Titi

Godah

et al. 2022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, Kow et al identified multiple inconsistencies across CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients especially in comparison with the WHO. [104] …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Amer

Titi

Godah

et al. 2022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous studies 6,7 have shown that the clinical guidelines of COVID‐19 lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Another study 8 suggested inconsistency between some recommendations of some clinical practice guidelines compared with those of the WHO. To our knowledge no study has yet systematically compared the recommendations of COVID‐19 diagnosis and treatment guidelines, for quality and consistency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID‐19

Luo

Liu

Ren

et al. 2021

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Since the beginning of the COVID‐19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID‐19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID‐19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. Methods We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID‐19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID‐19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID‐19 across the included guidelines. Results A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X‐rays, lung ultrasound, RT‐PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID‐19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. Conclusions The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID‐19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID‐19 are RT‐PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID‐19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

show abstract

“…Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has affected over 185 million people with 4 million deaths globally [ 1 ]. Unavailability of an experimental or proven anti-viral drug leads the physician to manage COVID-19 patients through symptomatic management [ 2–4 ]. Over the last few decades, advances in bioprocess technology and vaccine research have introduced technologies such as mRNA or vector-based vaccine technologies over the traditional whole live/inactivated vaccines [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibody response to the first dose of AZD1222 vaccine in COVID-19 convalescent and uninfected individuals in Bangladesh

Jamiruddin

Haq²,

Khondoker

et al. 2021

Expert Review of Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Vaccination with the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) initially started in the UK and quickly implemented around the Globe, including Bangladesh. Up to date, more than nine million doses administrated to the Bangladeshi public. Method Herein, we studied the antibody response to the first dose of AZD1222 in 86 Bangladeshi individuals using in-house ELISA kits. Study subjects were categorized into two groups, convalescent and uninfected, based on prior infection history and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid-IgG profiles. Results All the convalescent individuals presented elevated spike-1-IgG compared to 90% of uninfected ones after the first dose. Day >28 post-vaccination, the convalescent group showed six times higher antibody titer than the uninfected ones. The most elevated antibody titers for the former and later group were found at Day 14 and Days >28 post-vaccination, respectively. The spike-1-IgA titer showed a similar pattern as spike-1-IgG, although in a low-titer. In contrast, the IgM titer did not show any significant change in either group. Conclusion High antibody titer in the convalescent group, signify the importance of the first dose among the uninfected group. This study advocates the integration of antibody tests in vaccination programs in the healthcare system for maximizing benefit.

show abstract

Consistency of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID‐19

Antibody response to the first dose of AZD1222 vaccine in COVID-19 convalescent and uninfected individuals in Bangladesh

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About