PP554 Quality Assessment Of Clinical Practice Guidelines On Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Based On The Appraisal Of Guidelines For Research And Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument

Abstract

Introduction

The scientific application of clinical evidence-based guidelines can reduce the variability of clinical practice, and standardize clinical diagnosis and treatment pathways. At present, many evidence-based guidelines on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) prevention have been issued in countries around the world, but the procedures and evaluation strategies developed by different guidelines are not the same. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relating to COPD using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Methods

Databases were systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, and CNKI as well as guidelines websites on COPD prevention and treatment. The search period was from inception of the database up to May 2019. The inclusion criteria for this study are as follows: (i) published and in accordance with the definition of the practice guidelines; (ii)the main target population is COPD patients with the diagnostic criteria of the 2019 edition of the global initiative for COPD (GOLD), and the content of the guideline is related to the prevention and treatment practice of COPD; (ii) the same guide is included in the latest updated version; (iv) the published language is English or Chinese. Guidelines that met these inclusion criteria were evaluated for the quality of the AGREE II guidelines. Then, a descriptive analysis was made of the consensus that exists in the guidelines.

Results

A total of fifteen guidelines/Consensuses Statements were included in the study. Two guidelines were assessed as recommended, eleven guidelines were assessed as recommended with modifications and two guidelines were not recommended. The mean scores of the included guidelines in the six domains (scope and purpose, personnel involved in guideline development, rigor of development, clarity, applicability, independence) were 90 percent, 72 percent, 49 percent, 96 percent, 60 percent, 69 percent, respectively. Thus, the study identified a consensus that disease risk factors and recommended interventions were mentioned in the guidelines, and that they comprehensively evaluated the quality of guideline reporting to provide reference for standardizing the development of practice guidelines for COPD in China.

Conclusions

The overall methodological quality of COPD CPGs should be improved. The key recommended areas for improvement include standardization of guideline report writing and synthesis of the latest and best evidence, to develop CPGs for COPD to improve the quality of clinical diagnosis and treatment for COPD.