5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of perioperative hypothermia: Systematic review, critical appraisal, and quality assessment with the AGREE II instrument

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is considered an emergency life-threatening situation. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to manage hypothermia, based on evidence and expert opinions, could save lives. This systematic review assessed and compared the most recently approved international CPGs with the AGREE II instrument. We searched international bibliographic databases to identify relevant guidelines for managing perioperative hypothermia. Four independent reviewers (consultant anesthesiologists) critically appraised the selected guidelines with the AGREE II instrument. We analyzed inter-rater agreement and calculated an intra-class correlation coefficient (Kappa). We identified five CPGs for perioperative hypothermia that were eligible for critical appraisal. These CPGs were issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2016); the American Society of Peri-Anesthesia Nurses/Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (ASPAN/AHRQ-2006); the University of Southern Mississippi (USM/CPG-2017); The University Assistance Complex of Salamanca (UACS/CPG-2018); and the Justus-Liebig University of Giessen (UKGM/CPG-2015). The overall assessments of NICE-2016 and ASPAN/AHRQ-2006 scored >80%. These results were consistent with high scores achieved in the six domains of AGREE II: (1) scope and purpose, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) rigor of development, (4) clarity of presentation, (5) applicability, and (6) editorial independence domains. The NICE-2016, ASPAN/AHRQ-2006, and USM/CPG-2017) scored, respectively, 94%, 81%, and 70% for domain 3, 91%, 87%, and 66% for domain 5, and 90%, 82%, and 77% for domain 6. Generally, the NICE CPGs received significantly better clinical recommendations. However, all five evidence-based CPGs were of high methodological quality and were recommended for use in practice. Saudi Arabia should formulate its own national CPGs for diagnosis and management of perioperative hypothermia and to be published on NICE.

          Highlights

          • Guidance for adapting CPGs to a given clinical practice is a realistic, practical alternative to de novo CPG development, which is a time-consuming and resource-intensive approach.

          • Some nations, particularly those with low- and middle-income economies, have chosen to employ CPG adaptation, rather than developing new evidence-based practice programs.

          • Several formal adaptation approaches are currently available, and they may be tailored further to suit particular circumstances. Evaluations like the one described in the present study should provide guidance for appropriate CPG adaptation or development efforts, particularly for organizations with little expertise with the AGREE II instrument.

          • The current critical appraisal emphasized the importance of clinicians performing quality assessments of CPGs to ensure transparency and strength in the CPG development process, in accordance with international CPG standards. Moreover, our findings will support the provision of best practices for POH. Based on our findings, we propose that anesthesiologists should include an AGREE II review of CPGs in their capacity development strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ann Med Surg (Lond)
                Ann Med Surg (Lond)
                Annals of Medicine and Surgery
                Elsevier
                2049-0801
                31 May 2022
                July 2022
                31 May 2022
                : 79
                : 103887
                Affiliations
                [a ]Leeds University Teaching Hospital, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Leeds, United Kingdom
                [b ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [c ]Paediatric Surgery Department, Paediatric Urology Division, Leeds University Teaching Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
                [d ]Trauma and Orthopaedic Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [e ]Nutrition Officer at Mercy Corps Europe, Kadugli, Sudan
                [f ]Public Health and Community Medicine Department, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Academy of Scientific Research, Ministry of Higher Education, Cairo, Egypt
                [g ]Morbidity and Mortality Review Unit, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [h ]Pediatrics Department, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [i ]Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [j ]Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality Research Unit, Quality Management Department, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [k ]Alexandria Center for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
                [l ]Adaptation Working Group, Guidelines International Network, Perth, Scotland, United Kingdom
                [m ]Department of Surgery, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
                [n ]Cardiac Science Department, King Fahad Cardiac Science Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                Article
                S2049-0801(22)00647-1 103887
                10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103887
                9289222
                e5fd4c54-ad4f-4916-b011-7be3b14bbe49
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 1 April 2022
                : 23 May 2022
                : 29 May 2022
                Categories
                Systematic Review / Meta-analysis

                practice guidelines,critical appraisal,agree ii instrument,perioperative hypothermia,quality assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article