Alcohol use disorder: An analysis of the evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines.
Alcohol use disorder: An analysis of the evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109287
复制
发表时间：
2022-03-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Vassar M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tanner D;Minley K;Snider K;Hartwell M;Torgerson T;Ottwell R;Beaman J;Vassar M
由于临床实践指南(CPGs)为酒精使用障碍(AUD)患者提供了有效的医疗指导，其背后的证据应该是强有力的。我们的主要目标是批判性地评价CPG中引用的关于AUD治疗的系统性审查的方法学和报告质量。我们的第二个目标是确定Cochrane评价被引用作为理由的频率，并评估Cochrane评价和非Cochrane评价之间的评价。我们搜索PubMed以确定2015-2021年间发表的治疗AUD的CPG。使用首选的系统审评和荟萃分析报告工具(PRISMA)和经过验证的质量评估工具(AMSTAR-2)对每个CPG中包括的系统审评进行了评价。记录了其他研究特征。在筛选过程中，来自6个CPG的98个系统评价符合纳入标准。Prisma依从率为72%~85%，平均79%。AMSTAR-2依从性为52%~73%(平均68%)。AMSTAR评估评级发现32(35.6%)个严重低，10个(11.1%)低，35个(38.9%)中等，只有13个(14.4%)高系统评价。Cochrane系统评价显示，与非Cochrane研究相比，PRISMA(0.92vs.0.75：P<；0.001)和AMSTAR-2(0.92vs.0.61.；P<；0.001)得分更高。对AUD治疗的CPGs中包括的系统评价显示，对PRISMA和AMSTAR-2指南的依从性不同，几乎一半的系统评价的方法学质量极低到很低。鉴于酒精使用障碍的盛行，方法和报告质量建议对于加强向CPG提供信息的证据非常重要。
As Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) provide effective guidance for providing medical care for individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), the evidence behind them should be robust. Our primary objective was to critically appraise the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews cited within CPGs regarding the treatment of AUD. Our secondary objective was to determine how frequently Cochrane Reviews were cited as justification and to evaluate appraisals between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. We searched PubMed to identify CPGs for the treatment of AUD published between 2015–2021. Systematic reviews included in each CPG were evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and a validated quality assessment tool (AMSTAR-2). Additional study characteristics were recorded. From the screening process, 98 systematic reviews from 6 CPGs met inclusion criteria. PRISMA adherence ranged from 72 to 85% (mean of 79%). AMSTAR-2 adherence ranged from 52 to 73% (mean of 68%). AMSTAR appraisal ratings found 32 (35.6%) critically low, 10 (11.1%) low, 35 (38.9%) moderate, and only 13 (14.4%) high systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic reviews displayed greater PRISMA (0.92 vs. 0.75: p< 0.001) and AMSTAR-2 (0.90 vs. 0.61.; p< 0.001) scores compared to the non-Cochrane studies. Systematic reviews included in CPGs for AUD treatment showed variable adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines, with almost half of the systematic reviews being critically low to low methodological quality. Given the prevalence of alcohol use disorder, methodological and reporting quality recommendations are important to strengthening evidence informing CPGs.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1302997110
发表时间：
2013-09-10
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Fanelli, Daniele;Ioannidis, John P. A.
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
影响因子：
25.8
作者：
Grant BF;Goldstein RB;Saha TD;Chou SP;Jung J;Zhang H;Pickering RP;Ruan WJ;Smith SM;Huang B;Hasin DS
通讯作者：
Hasin DS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Anton, Raymond F.;Oroszi, Gabor;Goldman, David
通讯作者：
Goldman, David
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Bodenheimer, T;Wagner, EH;Grumbach, K
通讯作者：
Grumbach, K
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
Bates, Marsha E.;Buckman, Jennifer F.;Nguyen, Tam T.
通讯作者：
Nguyen, Tam T.