Doctoral School of Clinical Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2024 Jun 27;19(6):e0306098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306098. eCollection 2024.
Expert opinion is widely used in clinical guidelines. No research has ever been conducted investigating the use of expert opinion in international infectious disease guidelines. This study aimed to create an analytical map by describing the prevalence and utilization of expert opinion in infectious disease guidelines and analyzing the methodological aspects of these guidelines.
In this meta-epidemiological study, systematic searches in PubMed and Trip Medical Database were performed to identify clinical guidelines on infectious diseases, published between January 2018 and May 2023 in English, by international organizations. Data extracted included guideline characteristics, expert opinion utilization, and methodological details. Prevalence and rationale of expert opinion use were analyzed descriptively. Methodological differences between groups were analyzed with Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U Test.
The analysis covered 66 guidelines with 2296 recommendations, published/endorsed by 136 organizations. Most guidelines (79%) used systematic literature searches, 42% provided search strategies, and 38% presented screening flow diagrams and conducted risk of bias assessments. 48.5% of the guidelines allowed expert opinion, most of which included expert opinion as part of the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Guidelines allowing expert opinion, compared to those which do not, issued more recommendations per guideline (48.82 vs.19.13, p<0.001), and reported fewer screening flow diagrams (25% vs. 65%, p = 0.002), and less risk of bias assessments (19% vs.78%, p<0.001).
Expert opinion is utilized in half of assessed guidelines, often integrated into the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Its utilization varies considerably in methodology, form, and terminology between guidelines. These findings highlight a pressing need for additional research and guidance, to improve and advance the standardization of infectious disease guidelines.
专家意见在临床指南中被广泛应用。目前尚未有研究调查专家意见在国际传染病指南中的使用情况。本研究旨在通过描述传染病指南中专家意见的使用频率和方式,创建一个分析图谱,并分析这些指南的方法学方面。
在这项meta 流行病学研究中,我们在 PubMed 和 Trip Medical Database 中进行了系统检索,以确定在 2018 年 1 月至 2023 年 5 月期间,以英语发表的由国际组织制定的传染病临床指南。提取的数据包括指南特征、专家意见的使用以及方法学细节。我们对专家意见使用的频率和理由进行了描述性分析。采用卡方检验和曼-惠特尼 U 检验分析组间的方法学差异。
分析共涵盖了 66 项指南,包含 2296 条建议,由 136 个组织发布/认可。大多数指南(79%)采用了系统文献检索,42%提供了检索策略,38%展示了筛选流程图并进行了偏倚风险评估。48.5%的指南允许使用专家意见,其中大部分将专家意见纳入了分级系统内的证据层级。与不允许使用专家意见的指南相比,允许使用专家意见的指南每篇指南发布的建议更多(48.82 比 19.13,p<0.001),报告的筛选流程图更少(25%比 65%,p=0.002),偏倚风险评估更少(19%比 78%,p<0.001)。
在评估的指南中,有一半的指南使用了专家意见,这些意见通常被整合到分级系统内的证据层级中。指南之间在方法、形式和术语上对专家意见的使用存在很大差异。这些发现突显了加强研究和指导的迫切需求,以改进和推进传染病指南的标准化。