Biological drugs in the treatment of atopic dermatitis –
current recommendations of the Polish Dermatological
Society, the Polish Society of Allergology, the Polish Pediatric
Society and the Polish Society of Family Medicine

Nowicki, Roman; Trzeciak, Magdalena; Rudnicka, Lidia; Szepietowski, Jacek C.; Kulus, Marek; Kupczyk, Maciej; Mastalerz-Migas, Agnieszka; Peregud-Pogorzelski, Jarosław; Jahnz-Różyk, Karina; Czarnecka‐Operacz, Magdalena; Czajkowski, Rafał; Grubska-Suchanek, Elżbieta; Krasowska, Dorota; Krêcisz, Beata; Kowaléwski, Cezary; Lesiak, Aleksandra; Olszewska, Małgorzata; Samochocki, Zbigniew; Śpiewak, Radosław; Wilkowska, Aleksandra

doi:10.5114/ada.2020.100496

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hand search yielded 14 additional full‐text reports. Thorough examination of eligibility resulted in 40 included CPGs on AD, published in 56 reports 12–67 . The reason for the latter is that some CPGs were published in parts as journal articles (Figure 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We included 40 CPGs, 12–67 of which the majority (27) were from countries with a high sociodemographic index (SDI), 14,16–27,29–36,41–48,51–55,59–61,64–67 with only two 37–40 from a country with a middle‐low SDI (both from India) and none from countries with a low SDI. Nine CPGs came from Asia 13,36–40,46–49,59–61 ; one from Australia 14 ; 22 from Europe 29–35,41–45,51–58,62–66 ; four from North America 16–27,67 and four from South America 12,15,28,50 . Funding was not disclosed in seven CPGs 44,45,56,57,59,62,63 ; eight were funded and/or facilitated by pharmaceutical companies…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine CPGs came from Asia 13,36–40,46–49,59–61 ; one from Australia 14 ; 22 from Europe 29–35,41–45,51–58,62–66 ; four from North America 16–27,67 and four from South America 12,15,28,50 . Funding was not disclosed in seven CPGs 44,45,56,57,59,62,63 ; eight were funded and/or facilitated by pharmaceutical companies 12–14,17–27,40,50,67 ; 10 were not funded 15,16,30,31,33,36–39,43,64,65,66 and the remaining 15 were funded by the government, through a research grant or by the medical societies involved 28,29,32,34,35,41,42,46–49,51–55,58,60,61 . Dissemination was mostly done through medical journals (30) and 10 reports 12,28–31,34,49,51,57,63,66 were only available on the website of either a medical society or a governmental agency.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We included 40 CPGs, of which the majority (27) were from countries with a high sociodemographic index (SDI), 14,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][51][52][53][54][55][59][60][61][64][65][66][67] with only two [37][38][39][40] from a country with a middle-low SDI (both from India) and none from countries with a low SDI. Nine CPGs came from Asia 13,[36][37][38]…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Clinical Practice Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?*

Arents¹,

Zuuren

Vermeulen

et al. 2022

Br J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised. Objectives To identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE). Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer’s Red Flags. Results Forty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored ‘excellent’ on all AGREE II domains and three scored ‘poor’ on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country’s gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. ‘Applicability’ and ‘rigour of development’ were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; ‘external review’, ‘updating procedures’ and ‘rating strength of recommendations’ were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for ‘limited or no involvement of methodological expertise’ and ‘no external review’. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions. Conclusions Overall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%