Sharifan Amin, Abdulazeem Hebatullah, Meckawy Rehab, Pianta Martial Sonkoue, Abdelwahab Maya Magdy, Halder Ayush, Duque Tiffany Gust
Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
Chair of Epidemiology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Public Health. 2025 Mar;240:112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2025.01.018. Epub 2025 Feb 1.
To map and assess the quality of guidelines developed by or in partnership with the WHO on infectious diseases with a high risk of causing public health emergencies.
Cross-sectional audit study.
A search of the WHO website and MAGICapp was conducted to identify guidelines on treatment, management, diagnosis, prevention, and surveillance of the WHO's priority list of diseases. When these sources yielded no results, the AI search engine Perplexity was used to expand the search for locally developed WHO partner guidelines. Eligible guidelines were evaluated by three to four appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II).
Of the thirty-three guidelines assessed, 73 % were developed by the WHO and 27 % were in partnership with external organisations. Guidelines scored highest in clarity of presentation (73.71 %) but were weakest in editorial independence (26.63 %) and rigour of development (30.05 %). Thirteen guidelines (40 %) were suitable for practical use, with high scores in scope, rigour, and clarity. Fourteen (42 %) were recommended for clinical use with modifications due to insufficient rigour, stakeholder involvement, or editorial independence, whilst six (18 %) were not recommended because of significant methodological flaws. Furthermore, WHO's sole-produced guidelines had higher quality than those developed with external collaborators, except for one partnership. Moreover, no WHO guidelines were found for Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, Rift Valley fever, Nipah and henipaviral diseases, and SARS.
The rigour of development and editorial independence of WHO-supported guidelines require improvement, particularly for diseases where comprehensive guidelines are lacking.
绘制并评估由世界卫生组织（WHO）制定或与其合作制定的、针对具有引发突发公共卫生事件高风险的传染病指南的质量。
横断面审计研究。
对WHO网站和MAGICapp进行检索，以识别关于WHO重点疾病清单中疾病的治疗、管理、诊断、预防和监测的指南。当这些来源未产生结果时，使用人工智能搜索引擎Perplexity扩大对当地制定的WHO合作伙伴指南的搜索。符合条件的指南由三至四名评估者使用《研究与评价指南评估（AGREE II）》进行评估。
在评估的33项指南中，73%由WHO制定，27%是与外部组织合作制定。指南在表述清晰度方面得分最高（73.71%），但在编辑独立性（26.63%）和制定严谨性（30.05%）方面最为薄弱。13项指南（40%）适合实际使用，在范围、严谨性和清晰度方面得分较高。14项（42%）因严谨性、利益相关者参与度或编辑独立性不足而建议经修改后用于临床，而6项（18%）因存在重大方法缺陷而不被推荐。此外，除了一个合作伙伴关系外，WHO单独制定的指南质量高于与外部合作者共同制定的指南。此外，未找到针对克里米亚-刚果出血热、拉沙热、裂谷热、尼帕和亨尼帕病毒病以及严重急性呼吸综合征的WHO指南。
WHO支持的指南在制定严谨性和编辑独立性方面需要改进，特别是对于缺乏全面指南的疾病。
