Critical appraisal of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Abstract

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have long served as an essential tool for clinicians to rationalize their treatment in practice. However, the quality of guidelines varies greatly. The present study aimed to analyze high-quality CPGs of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and highlight the potential for further improvement.MethodsThree guideline developers’ websites, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as a public search engine, Google Scholar, were searched to retrieve CPGs regarding the management of IPF. The methodology and reporting quality of retrieved CPGs were assessed using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.ResultsTwelve IPF CPGs were reviewed, among which 7 (58.3%) were considered as “recommended” and 1 (8.3%) as “recommended with modifications”. Among the 6 domains of AGREE II, scope and purpose (70.99%) and clarity of presentation (68.06%) were considered to be the fields in which CPGs performed best, evidenced by the highest mean AGREE II scores. The domains in which the reviewed CPGs received the lowest mean scores were rigor of development (50.87%) and applicability (34.14%). The intraclass correlation coefficient scores were excellent in each domain. The basic information domain received the highest overall reporting rate in the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist; the other 6 domains had a full reporting rate of <50%. Eight items had a satisfactory level of reporting, whereas 14 items had poor reporting according to the RIGHT checklist. Correlation analysis revealed a highly positive correlation between the methodology and reporting quality of CPGs for IPF (r=0.872).ConclusionsThe methodological quality of selected IPF CPGs fluctuated greatly, and the full reporting rate was found to be quite low in some domains. In the future, we should focus not only on improving the methodological quality in the development of guidelines, but also on the reporting quality of guidelines.