Pediatric Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

Clinical practice guideline recommendations to improve the mental health of adult trauma patients: protocol for a systematic review

“…Pairs of reviewers with content expertise will independently assess CPGs quality based on the six domains of the AGREE II tool: 46 (1) scope and purpose (overall aim of the guideline; specific health questions and target population), (2) interested parties involvement (developed by the appropriate stakeholders; consistent with the views of its intended users), (3) rigorously developed (process used to gather and synthesise the evidence; methods to formulate and update the recommendations), (4) clarity and presentation (language; structure and format), ( 5) applicability (barriers and facilitators to implementation; Open access strategies to improve uptake such as integration into a national trauma performance verification process, tools for use at an organisational level, billing guidance for mental health practices, links to other relevant guidelines and tools and demand on healthcare resources) and ( 6) editorial independence (competing interests reported and addressed). In accordance with guidelines on the SR of CPGs 33 and based on previous SRs of CPGs, [47][48][49] each domain with a score≥60% will be considered effectively addressed. CPGs will be considered high quality if they score≥60% in at least three of the six AGREE II domains, including domain 3 (rigour of development).…”

“…Data synthesis CPG recommendations will be classified into the following key areas, as determined by the advisory committee: (1) mental health promotion/illness prevention, (2) screening for mental disorders, (3) assessment, (4) interventions, ( 5) referral for patients experiencing mental disorders for follow-up and support services and ( 6) patient and family centered-care approach. We will synthesise the evidence on recommendations for CPGs rated as moderate or high quality (AGREE II) 46 using a recommendation matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality of evidence (high, moderate, low and very low), 50 recommendation strength (low and high), [47][48][49] health and social determinants (ie, care equity), and whether or not recommendations were formulated using a population-based approach. 45 Matrix data will be extracted independently by pairs or reviewers for each recommendation.…”