Damiani Gianfranco, Silvestrini Giulia, Trozzi Lucrezia, Maci Donatella, Iodice Lanfranco, Ricciardi Walter
Department of Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Clin Interv Aging. 2014 Aug 20;9:1399-407. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S65046. eCollection 2014.
The aim of this paper was to explore the applicability of dementia clinical guidelines (CGs) to older patients, to patients with one or several comorbidities, and to both targets in order to evaluate if an association between the applicability and quality of the CGs exists.
A systematic search strategy conducted on electronic databases identified CGs on diagnosis and treatment of dementia published from 2000 to 2013. In addition, websites of organizations devoted to the treatment and awareness of dementia were searched. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Two investigators independently scored the relevance of the CGs by means of a specific tool. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed (Mann-Whitney test, 0.05 α-level).
Twenty-two CGs met our inclusion criteria. On average, the quality of the CGs was higher than 70% in three of six domains measured by the AGREE tool. The domains with lower mean scores (less than 50%) were "Applicability" and "Editorial independence". Considering applicability to older patients, 20 CGs (91%) addressed issues of treatment for older patients, five of them (23%) classified older patients by age, and 13 CGs (60%) addressed issues of comorbidity. Only seven (32%) discussed the quality of evidence for patients with multiple comorbid conditions. Thirteen CGs (60%) reported recommendations for patients with at least one comorbid condition, while seven of them (32%) reported on several comorbid conditions. No statistically significant association between CG quality and relevance to care of older people with or without comorbidity was found (P>0.05).
This study showed that dementia CGs poorly address treatment for older patients with comorbidities, regardless of their quality. Therefore, they scarcely satisfy the need of modern clinical practice.
本文旨在探讨痴呆临床指南(CGs)对老年患者、患有一种或多种合并症的患者以及这两类目标人群的适用性,以评估CGs的适用性与质量之间是否存在关联。
在电子数据库上进行的系统检索策略确定了2000年至2013年发表的关于痴呆诊断和治疗的CGs。此外,还搜索了致力于痴呆治疗和认知的组织的网站。使用指南研究与评价(AGREE)工具评估证据质量。两名研究人员通过特定工具独立对CGs的相关性进行评分。进行了描述性和推断性分析(曼-惠特尼检验,α水平为0.05)。
22项CGs符合我们的纳入标准。通过AGREE工具测量的六个领域中,平均有三个领域的CGs质量高于70%。平均得分较低(低于50%)的领域是“适用性”和“编辑独立性”。考虑到对老年患者的适用性,20项CGs(91%)涉及老年患者的治疗问题,其中五项(23%)按年龄对老年患者进行了分类,13项CGs(