Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 108; pp. 64 - 76
• Main Authors: Johnston, Amy, Kelly, Shannon E., Hsieh, Shu-Ching, Skidmore, Becky, Wells, George A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.04.2019; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Accuracy; Anticoagulants; Clinical decision making; Clinical medicine; Clinical practice guidelines; Data processing; Decision making; Design; Epidemiology; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guidelines; Humans; Literature reviews; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality; Quality assessment; Research methodology; Researchers; Reviews; Systematic review; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Clinical practice guidelines; Systematic review; Evidence-based medicine; Research methodology
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030

Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs. A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs. Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a “PICAR” statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent. SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.