Abstract：
Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.
A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus.
Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title (\'guideline\' vs \'consensus statement\'/ \'recommendations\') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse.
COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.
A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus.
Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title (\'guideline\' vs \'consensus statement\'/ \'recommendations\') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse.
COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.
摘要：
指导文件是临床医生指导循证决策的宝贵资源。麻醉和其他专业的指南质量已被证明很差。COVID-19迫切需要立即指导麻醉师作为一线临床医生。本研究的目的是使用国际认可的研究与评估指南评估（AGREE）II工具评估COVID-19指导文件的质量。
在OvidEMBASE和OvidMEDLINE进行了搜索，以确定2020-2021年的所有COVID-19麻醉指导文件。选择了38份指导文件，由4名独立评估师使用AGREEII工具进行分析，跨越其6个领域和23个项目。工作组通过协商一致同意了高质量的评分阈值。
总的来说，COVID-19指导文件的正文在使用AGREEII时得分较差。只有5%的文件符合高质量标准。质量标志包括国际和多机构合作。文档标题(\'指南\'与\'共识声明\'/\'建议\')在领域得分和总体质量评级方面没有任何差异。与最近的全身麻醉指南相比，COVID-19指南的表现明显更差。
在大流行的头两年发布的COVID-19指导文件缺乏严谨性和适当的质量。这引起了人们对它们在临床实践中使用的可信度的担忧。需要增强系统，以确保快速制定的指南的完整性。
在OvidEMBASE和OvidMEDLINE进行了搜索，以确定2020-2021年的所有COVID-19麻醉指导文件。选择了38份指导文件，由4名独立评估师使用AGREEII工具进行分析，跨越其6个领域和23个项目。工作组通过协商一致同意了高质量的评分阈值。
总的来说，COVID-19指导文件的正文在使用AGREEII时得分较差。只有5%的文件符合高质量标准。质量标志包括国际和多机构合作。文档标题(\'指南\'与\'共识声明\'/\'建议\')在领域得分和总体质量评级方面没有任何差异。与最近的全身麻醉指南相比，COVID-19指南的表现明显更差。
在大流行的头两年发布的COVID-19指导文件缺乏严谨性和适当的质量。这引起了人们对它们在临床实践中使用的可信度的担忧。需要增强系统，以确保快速制定的指南的完整性。
