Author:
Besson Florent L.,Treglia Giorgio,Bucerius Jan,Anagnostopoulos Constantinos,Buechel Ronny R.,Dweck Marc R.,Erba Paula A.,Gaemperli Oliver,Gimelli Alessia,Gheysens Olivier,Glaudemans Andor W. J. M.,Habib Gilbert,Hyafil Fabian,Lubberink Mark,Rischpler Christopher,Saraste Antti,Slart Riemer H. J. A.
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.
Methods
From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.
Results
A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.
Conclusion
The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference88 articles.
1. Carneiro AV. Methodological appraisal of guidelines. The AGREE instrument. Rev Port Cardiol. 2004;23:447–56.
2. Ferket BS, Genders TS, Colkesen EB, Visser JJ, Spronk S, Steyerberg EW, et al. Systematic review of guidelines on imaging of asymptomatic coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.10.055.
3. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999;281:1900–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.20.1900.
4. Qaseem A, Kansagara D, Lin JS, Mustafa RA, Wilt TJ, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of P, et al. The Development of Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements by the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians: Update of Methods. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:863–70. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-3290.
5. WHO Handbook for Guideline development. Extra info: WHO handbook for guideline development – 2nd ed. 1. Guidelines as Topic – standards. 2. Review. 3. Meta-Analysis. 4. Peer Review. 5. Evidence-Based Medicine. 6. World Health Organization. I. World Health Organization. 2014
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献