Differing methodological quality but identical recommendations? - Assessment of methodological quality and content analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Food-based Dietary Guidelines in early childhood allergy prevention

Author:

Sieferle KatharinaORCID,Bitzer Eva Maria

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveRecommendations on early childhood allergy prevention (ECAP) are found in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG). This study aims to compare the methodological quality and the content of recommendations in CPGs and FBDGs for ECAP.Study Design and SettingWe assessed methodological quality of a sample of 36 guidelines (23 CPGs, 13 FBDGs), retrieved through extensive searching, with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE) II. On a subset of recommendations, we performed an in-depth analysis by type of intervention for direction of and strength of recommendation and level of evidence. Descriptive analysis was conducted with SPSS 27.ResultsCPGs scored higher than FBDGs in most AGREE domains (3, 4, 5 and 6). The 36 guidelines contain 280 recommendations on ECAP, with 68 addressing the introduction of complementary foods and allergenic foods. We found only slight differences between those recommendations in CPGs and FBDGs.ConclusionFBDGs on ECAP are of lower quality than CPGs. This does not affect their recommendations on the introduction of complementary foods and allergenic foods but may compromise their trustworthiness.What is new?-Methodological quality of guidelines on ECAP is low, especially in FBDGs-Recommendations on introduction of complementary feeding rarely vary-Recommendations on introduction of potential allergenic foods show slight variation-More attention is needed on the slight differences and the underlying evidence

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference56 articles.

1. Allergic diseases and asthma: a global public health concern and a call to action;World Allergy Organ J,2014

2. Graham R. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

3. Guidelines International Network: Toward International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines

4. Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study

5. Financial conflicts of interest and outcomes and quality of systematic reviews;Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2017

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