From severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of the quality and responsiveness of clinical management guidelines in outbreak settings
Open Access
- 2 July 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by F1000 Research Ltd in Wellcome Open Research
Abstract
Background: Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) can be useful tools to guide clinician’s decision making and enable consistent evidence-based high-quality care. Here, we assessed whether their objective quality has improved over time by considering CMGs for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and from different timepoints for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a rapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. In total, six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development. Results: We included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Conclusions: The quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found limited evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167361 (17/02/2020)Funding Information
- Medical Research Council (MR/T001151/1)
- European Commission (602525)
- Wellcome Trust (215091)
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid reviewBMJ, 2020
- OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19-related hospital death in the linked electronic health records of 17 million adult NHS patientsPublished by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ,2020
- Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
- Empfehlungen zur intensivmedizinischen Therapie von Patienten mit COVID-19Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2020
- Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessmentsPLOS ONE, 2017
- Antiviral Treatment Guidelines for Middle East Respiratory SyndromeInfection & Chemotherapy, 2015
- Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can TrustPublished by The National Academies Press ,2011
- AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting, and evaluation in health carePreventive Medicine, 2010
- Management guidelines for obstetric patients and neonates born to mothers with suspected or probable severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2009
- Hospital management of adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) if SARS re-emerges—updated 10 February 2004Journal of Infection, 2004