PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.
METHODS: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.
RESULTS: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.
METHODS: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.
RESULTS: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在评估混合核心血管成像中专家建议和临床适应症指南的证据水平。
方法：从成立到2023年8月，PubMed文献分析了最新版本的临床混合心血管成像技术指南，包括SPECT（/CT），PET(/CT),和PET（/MRI）分为两类：（1）用于所有主要诊断的临床指征；预后和治疗评估的亚组；以及（2）影像学检查。我们调查了这些数据在多大程度上遵循了标准方法来收集数据并提供证据水平，以及对哪个主题执行了系统审查证据。
结果：共76条指南，2013年至2023年出版的，包括在内。指南的证据是基于7.9%病例的系统评价，47.4%的病例进行了非系统评价，19.7%的系统和非系统综述混合在一起，25%的指南没有报告任何证据.36.8%的病例报告了搜索策略。25%的指南清楚地报告了推荐的优势。23.7%的病例明确报告了外部审查的概念。最后,11.8%的纳入指南报告了方法学学家的支持.
结论：目前使用证据程序来开发基于证据的心血管混合成像建议和指南并不理想，强调需要更标准化的方法程序。
方法：从成立到2023年8月，PubMed文献分析了最新版本的临床混合心血管成像技术指南，包括SPECT（/CT），PET(/CT),和PET（/MRI）分为两类：（1）用于所有主要诊断的临床指征；预后和治疗评估的亚组；以及（2）影像学检查。我们调查了这些数据在多大程度上遵循了标准方法来收集数据并提供证据水平，以及对哪个主题执行了系统审查证据。
结果：共76条指南，2013年至2023年出版的，包括在内。指南的证据是基于7.9%病例的系统评价，47.4%的病例进行了非系统评价，19.7%的系统和非系统综述混合在一起，25%的指南没有报告任何证据.36.8%的病例报告了搜索策略。25%的指南清楚地报告了推荐的优势。23.7%的病例明确报告了外部审查的概念。最后,11.8%的纳入指南报告了方法学学家的支持.
结论：目前使用证据程序来开发基于证据的心血管混合成像建议和指南并不理想，强调需要更标准化的方法程序。
