Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis Using the AGREE II Tool

• Published in: Actas dermo-sifiliográficas (English ed.) Vol. 113; no. 3; pp. 222 - 235
• Main Authors: Montesinos-Guevara, C, Andrade Miranda, A, Bedoya-Hurtado, E, Escobar Liquitay, C M, Franco, J V A, Simancas-Racines, D, Sami Amer, Y, Vernooij, R W M, Viteri-García, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Spanish
• Published: Spain 01.03.2022
• Subjects: Humans; Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Psoriasis - drug therapy; Clinical practice guidelines; Treatment; Psoriasis; Clinical guidelines; Tratamiento; Guías clínicas; Guía de práctica clínica
• ISSN: 1578-2190
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2021.09.004

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to help health professionals provide patients with excellent medical care. The last critical appraisal of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis evaluated publications up to 2009, but several new guidelines have been published since and their methodological quality remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis published between 2010 and 2020 using the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. We searched for relevant CPGs in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribean Health Sciences Literature) as well as in the gray literature. Two reviewers working independently selected the guidelines for analysis and extracted the relevant data. Each guideline was then assessed using the AGREE II instrument by 5 reviewers, also working independently. Nineteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria and most of them had been produced in high-income countries. The mean (SD) domain scores were 84.9% (14.7%) for scope and purpose, 65.5% (19.3%) for stakeholder involvement, 66.7% (15.6%) for rigor of development, 72.8% (16.8%) for clarity of presentation, 46.6% (21.7%) for applicability, and 57.0% (30.4%) for editorial independence. Although about three-quarters of the CPGs assessed were judged to be of high quality and over half were recommended for use in clinical practice, standards of guideline development need to be raised to improve CPG quality, particularly in terms of applicability and editorial independence, which had the lowest scores in our evaluation.