Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Issue 12 (10th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Yu; Zhu, Li-Yun; Deng, Hai-Bo; Yang, Xu; Wang, Lei; Xu, Yuan; Wang, Xiao-Jie; Pang, Dong; Sun, Jian-Hua; Cao, Jing; Liu, Ge; Liu, Ying; Ma, Yu-Fen; Wu, Xin-Juan
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 10:Issue 12(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12-10
• Subjects: thromboembolism -- quality in healthcare -- hip -- knee; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040686
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in up to 40%–80% of patients after hip and knee arthroplasty. Clinical decision-making aided by guidelines is the most effective strategy to reduce the burden of VTE. However, the quality of guidelines is dependent on the strength of their evidence base. The objective of this article is to critically evaluate the quality of VTE prevention guidelines and the strength of their recommendations in VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods: Relevant literature up to 16 March 2020 was systematically searched. We searched databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang and nine guidelines repositories. The identified guidelines were appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II and appraised the strength of their recommendations independently. Following quality assessment, a predesigned data collection form was used to extract the characteristics of the included guideline. Results: We finally included 15 guidelines. Ten of the included guidelines were rated as 'recommended' or 'recommended with modifications'. The standardised scores were relatively high in the domains of Clarity of Presentation, and Scope and Purpose. The lowest average standardised scores were observed in the domains of Applicability and Stakeholder Involvement. In reference to the domains of Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence, the standardised scores varied greatly between the guidelines. The agreement between the two appraisers is almost perfect (intraclass correlation coefficients higher than 0.80). A considerable proportion of the recommendations is based on low-quality or very-low-quality evidence or is even based on working group expert opinion. Conclusions: In summary, the majority of the recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, and further confirmation is needed. Furthermore, guideline developers should pay more attention to methodological quality, especially in the Stakeholder Involvement domain and the Applicability domain.