Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines

Author:

Xie Jiaxing1,Wang Zhufeng2,Liang Jingyi2,Lin Huimin1,Yang Zhaowei1,Wang Yingzhi3,Liang Hanwen2,Wu Hongkai2,Chen Ruchong1,Ou Younger2,Wang Fengyan2,Wang Yuan2,Wang Yan2,Luo Weizhan2,Zhang Jianheng2,Li Naijian1,Li Zhengtu2,Jiang Mei2,Li Shiyue2,Li Jing1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

2. National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

3. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease and National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Abstract

Abstract Background Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Results A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as “recommended” for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management. Conclusions The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.

Funder

National Key Research and Development Program of China

National Science Foundation of China

Clinical Innovation Research Program of Guangzhou Regenerative Medicine and Health Guangdong Laboratory

Zhongnanshan Medical Foundation of Guangdong Province and Guangdong Province Science and Technology Innovation Strategy Special Foundation

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Infectious Diseases,Oncology

Cited by 10 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3