The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey
The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-021-07756-6
复制
发表时间：
2021-03-08
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Sun，Xin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li，Qianrui;Hou，Wenxiu;Sun，Xin
ObjectivesTo examine what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.MethodsThe latest version of guidelines for PET，PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analyzed in two categories：（1）for indications，if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in different conditions;（2）for procedures，if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging.我们调查的一般特点和使用系统评价证据的建议，制定所有的指南，并调查了证据的引用五个建议的主题，在指南procedures. ResultsForty七个指南，2004年和2020年之间出版的，包括在内。适应症指南主要基于系统评价（13/19，68.4%）。其中，12例（63.2%）报告了证据等级，4例（21.1%）报告了建议强度，3例（15.8%）描述了外部审查，7例（36.8%）涉及方法学家。很少制定系统性综述的程序指南（1/27，3.7%）。其中，1例（3.7%）报告了证据等级，1例（3.7%）报告了建议强度，3例（11.1%）描述了外部审查，1例（3.7%）涉及方法学家。2（7.4%）的程序指南，每个建议的主题medium.ConclusionThe使用系统评价证据PET或PET/CT指南之间的建议是次优的。虽然我们的调查是一次破冰尝试，旨在探索制定核医学指南的一个关键因素（即系统评价证据的使用），但对指南质量的其他领域的评估可能有助于全面了解情况。关键点·在PET或PET/CT指南中，使用系统评价证据制定建议是次优的。·只有13份（68.4%）适应症指南和1份（3.7%）手术指南在指南制定过程中系统地回顾了文献。对于我们检查的每个推荐主题，只有中位数为2（7.4%）的程序指南引用了系统综述证据。
ObjectivesTo examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.MethodsThe latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures.ResultsForty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median.ConclusionThe use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture.Key Points• The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal.• Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development.• For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.