Doniselli Fabio Martino, Zanardo Moreno, Mazon Miguel, Cuccarini Valeria, Rovira Alex, Costa Antonella, Sconfienza Luca Maria, Arana Estanislao
Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano.
Radiology and Biomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230), La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital and La Fe Health Research Institute, Valencia.
Otol Neurotol. 2022 Dec 1;43(10):1108-1115. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003724. Epub 2022 Oct 10.
The aim of this review is to assess the methodological quality of guidelines for the management of vertigo and dizziness and to compare their recommendations, with specific focus on neuroimaging.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence database.
In March 2022, a systematic search was performed to find practice guidelines of management of vertigo and dizziness. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool. We excluded from the results those guidelines that were not primarily focused on vertigo and dizziness, such as national/international guidelines in which vertigo and dizziness were only briefly mentioned.
Our strategy of literature search identified 161 studies, and 18 guidelines were selected for the appraisal. Only five guidelines reached the acceptance level in the overall result (at least 60%), with three of them reaching the highest scores (at least 80%). The highest scores were found in Domain 6 "Editorial Independence," Domain 1 "Scope and purpose," and Domain 4 "Clarity of presentation" (median value = 66%, 62%, and 61%, respectively). The remaining domains showed a low level of quality: Domain 2 "Stakeholder Involvement," Domain 3 "Rigor of development," and Domain 5 "Applicability" had median values of 27%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. The quality of these guidelines was very low, because of low involvement of multidisciplinary teams in writing guidelines recommendations.
Considering all guidelines, only three had a "high" overall score, whereas 13 of 18 (72%) of them were rated as of "low" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.
本综述旨在评估眩晕和头晕管理指南的方法学质量,并比较其推荐意见,特别关注神经影像学。
MEDLINE、EMBASE、国家指南资料库和英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所数据库。
2022年3月,进行了系统检索以查找眩晕和头晕管理的实践指南。由四位作者使用AGREE II工具独立进行指南质量评估。我们从结果中排除了那些并非主要关注眩晕和头晕的指南,例如仅简要提及眩晕和头晕的国家/国际指南。
我们的文献检索策略共识别出161项研究,选择了18项指南进行评估。总体结果中只有五项指南达到了可接受水平(至少60%),其中三项达到了最高分(至少80%)。在第6领域“编辑独立性”、第1领域“范围和目的”以及第4领域“表述清晰度”中得分最高(中位数分别为66%、62%和61%)。其余领域的质量较低:第2领域“利益相关者参与”、第3领域“制定的严谨性”和第5领域“适用性”的中位数分别为27%、27%和22%。由于多学科团队在撰写指南推荐意见时参与度较低,这些指南的质量非常低。
综合所有指南来看,只有三项的总体评分“高”,而18项中有13项(72%)被评为“低”质量。未来的指南可能需要考虑到这一点以提高临床适用性。