International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Amer, Yasser Sami; Titi, Maher A.; Godah, Mohammad W.; Wahabi, Hayfaa; Hneiny, Layal; Abouelkheir, Manal; Hamad, Muddathir H.; Elgohary, Ghada; Hamouda, M. Ben; Ouertatani, Hella; Velásquez-Salazar, Pamela; Acosta‐Reyes, Jorge; Alhabib, Samia; Esmaeil, Samia; Fedorowicz, Zbys; Zhang, Ailing; Chen, Zhe; Lipttrott, Sarah Jane; Frungillo, Niccolò; Jamal, Amr; Almustanyir, Sami; Dieyi, Newman Ugochukwu; Powell, John; Hon, Katrina J.; Alzeidan, Rasmieh; Azzo, Majduldeen; Zambrano-Rico, Sara; Ramirez-Jaramillo, Paulina; Flórez, Iván D.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.010

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The topic most studied (40.6%) was the treatment of COVID-19. 20 , 22 , 25 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 62–64 , 67–74 , 79 The population most studied (76.6%) was general COVID-19 patients, 18–23 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 31–34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 42–44 , 46 , 47 , 49–65 , 67–76 , 79 but there were fewer (6.3%) studies concerning pregnant women 16 , 17 , 30 , 78 and children 28 , 30 , 77 , 78 with COVID-19, even no study concerning the elderly with COVID-19. ( Table 1 , Supplementary Material Table 1 )…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 23 , 26 , 32 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 63 , 64 , 71 , 72 Thirty-four point 4 percent of LSRs were updated regularly. 16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 45 , 50–52 , 54 , 56 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 74 , 78 The update frequency of LSRs ranged from weekly to annually, with an average of every 95 days, with a standard deviation of 80.51. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs were never updated ( Table 2 , Supplementary Material Tables 1 and 5 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the production phase of LSR, most of the LSRs registered [16][17][18][19][20][21][22]25,26,[28][29][30][31][32][33]35,37,[39][40][41][42][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][65][66][67][69][70][71][72][73][76][77][78][79] (81.2%) and wrote the protocol [16]…”

Section: Methodology Of Lsr For Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most (89.1%) LSRs were published in SCI journal. [16][17][18][19][20][21][46][47][48][49][50][51][53][54][55][56][57][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] The impact factor published in SCI journals ranged from 1.04 to 39.89, with an average of 11.72 and a standard deviation of 11.30. The impact factor of 64.1% studies was >5, [16][17][18][19][20]23,26,27,30,32,33,36,37,[39][40][41...…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The topic most studied (40.6%) was the treatment of COVID-19. 20,22,25,32,37,39,43,46,47,49,51,55,56,58,[62][63][64][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]79 The population most studied (76.6%) was general COVID-19 patients, [18][19][20][21][22][23]26,27,29,[31][32][33][34]36,37,39,[42][43][44]46,47,[49][50][51][52][53]…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Chen¹,

Luo²,

Li³

et al. 2022

CLEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. Results Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. Conclusion Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology Of Lsr For Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Chen¹,

Luo²,

Li³

et al. 2022

CLEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A protocol for adapting a clinical practice guideline for the treatment of paediatric asthma for the Egyptian Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee

Abdel Baky,

Youssef,

Elsholkamy

et al. 2024

Clinical and Public Health Guidelines

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPaediatric asthma is a prevalent and chronic respiratory condition affecting children worldwide. This protocol outlines the methodology for developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of paediatric asthma. The goal of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for healthcare professionals, improving the quality of care and health outcomes for paediatric patients with asthma.MethodsWe will use the ‘Adapted ADAPTE’ adaption method, a systematic approach to adapt existing guidelines, which consists of three phases (setup, adaptation and finalisation phases), nine modules and 24 steps, with adaptations to the process and tools to suit the Egypt healthcare context and resources.QuestionsClinical questions were prepared using the patient population, interventions, professionals, outcomes and healthcare context (PIPOH) model. This CPG protocol addresses critical clinical questions at the heart of effective asthma management in children. It focuses on the diagnosis of paediatric asthma, considering age‐specific clinical presentations and diagnostic tests, assessment of asthma severity, control medications like inhaled corticosteroids, long‐acting β‐agonists and others, with an emphasis on appropriate tools and criteria. The CPG also delves into the realm of long‐term control treatment, exploring the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions, while considering individualised needs. Furthermore, it examines strategies for monitoring and adjusting treatment plans over time, ensuring optimal care. These clinical questions form the foundation of the CPG, facilitating evidence‐based care delivery and enhancing health outcomes for paediatric asthma patients.

show abstract