Quality evaluation of endometriosis guidelines using AGREE II. Issue 43 (28th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lei, Yan; Du, Xin; Chen, Dejun; Gao, Yue; Lian, Hongmei
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 101:Issue 43(2022)
• Page Start: e31331
• Publication Date: 2022-10-28
• Subjects: AGREE II evaluation tool -- endometriosis -- expert consensus -- guideline; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract : Background: To systematically evaluate the guidelines for endometriosis published in the past decade, and to provide reference for the selection of guidelines for endometriosis through quality evaluation and comparison. Methods: PubMed database, Embase database, evidence-based medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPG) database and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom were searched by computer from December 2012 to December 2020 to retrieve published endometriosis CPG published by professional institutions or organizations. The search languages are English and Portuguese. Two researchers evaluated the quality of included CPG according to appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II). The evaluation includes 6 areas: scope and purpose, participants, rigor of formulation, clarity of expression, applicability and independence. The recommendation level of CPG is determined by the distribution of standardized scores in the above 6 areas. Results: A total of 8 articles on endometriosis CPG were included, including 5 guidelines and 3 consensuses, covering 5 countries in 2 continents; the publication year was 2013 to 2020. The average standardized scores of the scope and purpose, participants, rigor, clarity, applicability and independence of CPG were 77.1%, 52.8%, 50.5%, 86.8%, 31.3%, and 36.5%, respectively. Among the 8 CPGs, 1 was grade A (recommended), 5 were grade B (recommended after improvement), and 2 were grade C (not recommended). Seven CPG recommendations were based on expert consensus, and one was developed through detailed literature retrieval, analysis and evidence rating evaluation. There was little difference between the guidelines in terms of treatment-related recommendations. Conclusions: The quality of endometriosis CPG released in 2013 to 2020 is quite different, and some CPGs are not ideal in terms of rigor, applicability and independence. The guidelines issued by NICE in 2017 are A-grade recommendations. The standardized scores in various fields are high, and the formation process of CPG is the most standardized, which is worth learning and reference.