The Grading of Recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach was rarely followed and inconsistently applied in pressure injury prevention guidelines development: A cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was developed to assess the certainty (or quality) of evidence and strength of recommendations in guidelines and endorsed internationally as a standard. Some guidelines had been developed to promote pressure injury prevention.

AIMS

We explored whether and to what extent the development of pressure injury prevention guidelines had followed or been informed by the GRADE approach. If this approach was not used, we examined which other methods were used instead.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of pressure injury prevention guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Chinese databases as well as guideline repositories and websites of professional bodies were searched for guidelines from 1990 to 2020. The grading systems of the certainty (or quality) of evidence and strength of recommendations of included guidelines were extracted. For the GRADE approach guidelines, compliance was assessed with the GRADE application criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty guidelines were identified. Among them, four guidelines (20%) indicated the use of the GRADE approach. The compliance rate ranged from 33.3%-94.4%. Other approaches, such as the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) approach, were also used.

CONCLUSION

The GRADE approach is rarely followed and inconsistently applied in pressure injury prevention guidelines. Other systems, such as the SIGN approach, are being used despite being outdated or inconsistent. Strategies for further uptake and appropriate application of the GRADE approach among guideline developers are needed in the future.

Management of abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen

OBJECTIVES

The management of the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and the open abdomen (OA) are important to improve survival after major vascular surgery, in particular ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The aim is to summarize contemporary knowledge in this field.

METHODS

The consensus definitions of the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) that were published in 2006 and the clinical practice guidelines published in 2007 were updated in 2013. Structured clinical questions were formulated (modified Delphi method), and the evidence base to answer those questions was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

Most of the previous definitions were kept untouched, or were slightly modified. Four new definitions were added, including a definition of OA and of lateralization of the abdominal wall, an important clinical problem to approach during prolonged OA treatment. A classification system of the OA was added. Seven recommendations were formulated, in summary: Trans-bladder intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) should be monitored in patients at risk. Protocolized monitoring and management are recommended, and decompression laparotomy if ACS. When OA, protocolized efforts to obtain an early abdominal fascial closure, and strategies utilizing negative pressure wound therapy should be used, versus not. In most cases the evidence was graded as weak or very weak. In six of the structured clinical questions, no recommendation could be made.

CONCLUSION

This review summarizes changes in definitions and management guidelines of relevance to vascular surgery, and data on the incidence of ACS after open and endovascular aortic surgery.