Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Sysmex-derived COVID-19 prognostic score as an early prognostic marker for severity of the COVID-19 disease

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening disease with a heterogeneous course. Even some young patients are at increased risk of severe course or death, as they can face severe complications. It would be very useful to have a cheap and easily available marker to predict COVID-19 course in the early stages of the disease. The COVID-19 prognostic score could be a very useful clinical indicator available at the time of primary contact with the patient.

METHODS

The COVID-19 prognostic score and the clinical condition together with selected laboratory parameters were evaluated in patients with respiratory tract infection and a positive PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 during the first contact with the patient. Prognostic significance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC). Selected parameters of the blood count and hemostasis, as well as selected biochemical indicators, were examined too.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 164 patients developed serious symptoms. The COVID-19 score had one of the highest AUC values (0.855) of all markers. The highest combination of sensitivity (91.9%) and specificity (71.7%) for identifying patients with a subsequent moderate and severe course of the disease was achieved at the threshold 1.5. The predictive value of a negative test is beneficial too (0.968).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 prognostic score is a promising indicator stratifying patients with COVID-19 into prognostic groups at the time of the first contact, thus allowing the timely provision of increased care in patients at high risk of severe development.

Identifying complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for anxiety treatment and care: a systematic review and critical assessment of comprehensive clinical practice guidelines

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to guide decision-making, especially regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies that are unfamiliar to orthodox healthcare providers. This systematic review aimed to critically review and summarise CAM recommendations associated with anxiety management included in the existing CPGs.

Methods

Seven databases, websites of six international guidelines developing institutions, and the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health website were systematically searched. Their reporting and methodological quality were evaluated using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare checklist and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (2nd version) instrument, respectively.

Results

Ten CPGs were included, with reporting rates between 51.4 and 88.6%. Seven of these were of moderate to high methodological quality. Seventeen CAM modalities were implicated, involving phytotherapeutics, mind-body practice, art therapy, and homeopathy. Applied relaxation was included in 70% CPGs, which varied in degree of support for its use in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder. There were few recommendations for other therapies/products. Light therapy was not recommended for use in generalised anxiety disorder, and St John's wort and mindfulness were not recommended for use in social anxiety disorder in individual guidelines. Recommendations for the applicability of other therapies/products for treating a specific anxiety disorder were commonly graded as "unclear, unambiguous, or uncertain". No CAM recommendations were provided for separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia or selective mutism.

Conclusion

Available guidelines are limited in providing logically explained graded CAM recommendations for anxiety treatment and care. A lack of high-quality evidence and multidisciplinary consultation during the guideline development are two major reasons. High quality and reliable clinical evidence and the engagement of a range of interdisciplinary stakeholders are needed for future CPG development and updating.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022373694, identifier CRD42022373694.

Therapies for people hospitalized with COVID-19 and alignment with national clinical guidelines in a large hospital, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2020-2021

Background

Clinical practice guidelines were continually changing during the COVID-19 pandemic to reflect the best available evidence for a novel virus. In Kazakhstan, the national clinical guidelines for COVID-19 patient care were regularly modified and it was not known if and to what extent these guidelines were being followed in practice.

Methods

We conducted a sub-analysis of data collected from an observational study among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large infectious disease hospital in Almaty in four cross-sections of increased COVID-19 incidence: T1 (1 June-30 August 2020); T2 (1 October-31 December 2020); T3 (1 April-31 May 2021); and T4 (1 July-26 October 2021). Modifications to the national COVID-19 treatment guidelines were identified and clinical data were abstracted from electronic medical records. We assessed frequency of antibiotic, glucocorticoid, anticoagulant, and antiviral administered in each period and determined if these aligned with national clinical guidelines. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare practices across periods.

Results

Six modifications were made to national COVID-19 treatment guidelines during this study. Of 1,146 people hospitalized with COVID-19, 14% were in T1, 14% in T2, 22% in T3, and 50% in T4. Anticoagulant treatment was administered to 87% (range: 56%-95%), antibiotic treatment to 60% (range: 58%-64%), glucocorticoid to 55% (range: 43%-64%) and antiviral therapy 15% (range: 7%-22%). Majority of treatments were not aligned with national guidelines, including 98% of anticoagulant use, 95% of antibiotic use, 56% of glucocorticoid use, and 56% of antiviral use. There were no significant changes in practice following changes in guidelines for antibiotic use (64% in T1 to 58% in T2, p = 0.30). There was significant increase in use of anticoagulant (84% in T2 vs. 95% in T3, p < 0.01), glucocorticoid (43% in T2 vs. 64% in T3, p < 0.01), and antiviral treatment (7% in T3 vs. 15% in T4, p < 0.01) after guidelines updates.

Conclusion

The majority of treatments administered to people hospitalized with COVID-19 in four periods of high incidence in Almaty were not aligned with updated clinical guidelines. Antibiotic misuse was markedly high throughout. Increased awareness and training on clinical practice guidelines as updates are released may help improve adoption of evidence-based practices.

Development of the Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) tool for clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop a comprehensive instrument for evaluating and ranking clinical practice guidelines, named Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings tool (STAR), and test its reliability, validity, and usability.

METHODS

This study set up a multidisciplinary working group including guideline methodologists, statisticians, journal editors, clinicians, and other experts. Scoping review, Delphi methods, and hierarchical analysis were used to develop the STAR tool. We evaluated the instrument's intrinsic and interrater reliability, content and criterion validity, and usability.

RESULTS

STAR contained 39 items grouped into 11 domains. The mean intrinsic reliability of the domains, indicated by Cronbach's α coefficient, was 0.588 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.414, 0.762). Interrater reliability as assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.774 (95% CI: 0.740, 0.807) for methodological evaluators and 0.618 (95% CI: 0.587, 0.648) for clinical evaluators. The overall content validity index was 0.905. Pearson's r correlation for criterion validity was 0.885 (95% CI: 0.804, 0.932). The mean usability score of the items was 4.6 and the median time spent to evaluate each guideline was 20 min.

CONCLUSION

The instrument performed well in terms of reliability, validity, and efficiency, and can be used for comprehensively evaluating and ranking guidelines.

Evaluation of the Quality of COVID-19 Guidance Documents in Anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions