Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Eur Radiol. 2021 Sep;31(9):6992-7002. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07756-6. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.
The 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.
Forty-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.
The 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.
• 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.
研究 PET 和 PET/CT 指南在多大程度上使用了系统评价证据。
分析截至 2019 年 12 月在 PubMed 上以英文发表的最新版 PET、PET/CT 或 PET/MRI 指南，分为两类：（1）适应证指南，如果主要讨论 PET 在各种情况下的合理应用；（2）操作指南，如果为影像学提供分步说明。我们调查了所有指南中制定建议时系统评价证据的使用情况，并调查了操作指南中 5 个推荐主题的证据引用情况。
共纳入 47 项指南，发表于 2004 年至 2020 年之间。适应证指南主要基于系统评价制定（19 项中的 13 项，68.4%）。其中 12 项（63.2%）报告了证据水平，4 项（21.1%）报告了推荐强度，3 项（15.8%）描述了外部审查，7 项（36.8%）涉及方法学家。操作指南很少基于系统评价制定（27 项中的 1 项，3.7%）。其中 1 项（3.7%）报告了证据水平，1 项（3.7%）报告了推荐强度，3 项（11.1%）描述了外部审查，1 项（3.7%）涉及方法学家。按推荐主题计算，中位数为 2 项（7.4%）操作指南引用了系统评价证据。
PET 或 PET/CT 指南制定建议时系统评价证据的使用并不理想。虽然我们的调查是探索核医学指南制定的一个关键要素（即系统评价证据的使用）的破冰尝试，但对指南质量其他领域的评估可能有助于全面了解情况。
PET 或 PET/CT 指南制定建议时系统评价证据的使用并不理想。
适应证指南中仅有 13 项（68.4%）和操作指南中仅有 1 项（3.7%）在指南制定过程中对文献进行了系统评价。
对于我们检查的每个推荐主题，仅有中位数为 2 项（7.4%）的操作指南引用了系统评价证据。
