Abstract：
The aim of this review is to assess the methodological quality of guidelines for the management of vertigo and dizziness and to compare their recommendations, with specific focus on neuroimaging.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence database.
In March 2022, a systematic search was performed to find practice guidelines of management of vertigo and dizziness. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool. We excluded from the results those guidelines that were not primarily focused on vertigo and dizziness, such as national/international guidelines in which vertigo and dizziness were only briefly mentioned.
Our strategy of literature search identified 161 studies, and 18 guidelines were selected for the appraisal. Only five guidelines reached the acceptance level in the overall result (at least 60%), with three of them reaching the highest scores (at least 80%). The highest scores were found in Domain 6 \"Editorial Independence,\" Domain 1 \"Scope and purpose,\" and Domain 4 \"Clarity of presentation\" (median value = 66%, 62%, and 61%, respectively). The remaining domains showed a low level of quality: Domain 2 \"Stakeholder Involvement,\" Domain 3 \"Rigor of development,\" and Domain 5 \"Applicability\" had median values of 27%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. The quality of these guidelines was very low, because of low involvement of multidisciplinary teams in writing guidelines recommendations.
Considering all guidelines, only three had a \"high\" overall score, whereas 13 of 18 (72%) of them were rated as of \"low\" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence database.
In March 2022, a systematic search was performed to find practice guidelines of management of vertigo and dizziness. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool. We excluded from the results those guidelines that were not primarily focused on vertigo and dizziness, such as national/international guidelines in which vertigo and dizziness were only briefly mentioned.
Our strategy of literature search identified 161 studies, and 18 guidelines were selected for the appraisal. Only five guidelines reached the acceptance level in the overall result (at least 60%), with three of them reaching the highest scores (at least 80%). The highest scores were found in Domain 6 \"Editorial Independence,\" Domain 1 \"Scope and purpose,\" and Domain 4 \"Clarity of presentation\" (median value = 66%, 62%, and 61%, respectively). The remaining domains showed a low level of quality: Domain 2 \"Stakeholder Involvement,\" Domain 3 \"Rigor of development,\" and Domain 5 \"Applicability\" had median values of 27%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. The quality of these guidelines was very low, because of low involvement of multidisciplinary teams in writing guidelines recommendations.
Considering all guidelines, only three had a \"high\" overall score, whereas 13 of 18 (72%) of them were rated as of \"low\" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.
摘要：
这项审查的目的是评估眩晕和头晕管理指南的方法学质量，并比较其建议，特别关注神经成像。
MEDLINE,EMBASE,国家准则信息交换所，和国家健康与临床卓越数据库研究所。
2022年3月，进行了系统搜索，以寻找眩晕和头晕管理的实践指南。指南质量的评估由四位作者使用AGREEII工具独立进行。我们从结果中排除了那些不主要关注眩晕和头晕的指南，例如国家/国际准则，其中仅简要提及眩晕和头晕。
我们的文献检索策略确定了161项研究，并选择了18条准则进行评估。只有五个准则在总体结果中达到了接受水平(至少60%),其中三人得分最高(至少80%)。最高分出现在第6域“编辑独立性”中，“域1”范围和目的，\"和域4\"演示的清晰度\"(中值=66%，62%,61%,分别)。其余领域的质量水平较低：领域2“利益相关者的参与，“域3”发展的严谨，“和领域5”适用性的中值为27%，27%,22%,分别。这些指南的质量很低，由于多学科团队在编写指南建议方面的参与度较低。
考虑到所有准则，只有三个人的总分“高”，而其中18人中有13人(72%)被评为“低”质量。未来的指南可能会考虑到这一点，以提高临床适用性。
MEDLINE,EMBASE,国家准则信息交换所，和国家健康与临床卓越数据库研究所。
2022年3月，进行了系统搜索，以寻找眩晕和头晕管理的实践指南。指南质量的评估由四位作者使用AGREEII工具独立进行。我们从结果中排除了那些不主要关注眩晕和头晕的指南，例如国家/国际准则，其中仅简要提及眩晕和头晕。
我们的文献检索策略确定了161项研究，并选择了18条准则进行评估。只有五个准则在总体结果中达到了接受水平(至少60%),其中三人得分最高(至少80%)。最高分出现在第6域“编辑独立性”中，“域1”范围和目的，\"和域4\"演示的清晰度\"(中值=66%，62%,61%,分别)。其余领域的质量水平较低：领域2“利益相关者的参与，“域3”发展的严谨，“和领域5”适用性的中值为27%，27%,22%,分别。这些指南的质量很低，由于多学科团队在编写指南建议方面的参与度较低。
考虑到所有准则，只有三个人的总分“高”，而其中18人中有13人(72%)被评为“低”质量。未来的指南可能会考虑到这一点，以提高临床适用性。
