这项研究的主要目的是评估支持欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)和美国心脏病学会(ACC)临床实践指南(CPGs)建议的系统评价(SRs)的方法学和报告质量室性心律失常和心源性猝死(SCD)患者的管理。作为次要目标,我们试图确定:(1)CochraneSRs被引用的比例;(2)CochraneSRs在系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)的首选报告项目和评估系统评价2的测量工具(AMSTAR-2)上是否得分较高.
横截面分析。
我们搜索了ESC和ACC从2010年到2020年发布的CPG。我们选择了用于室性心律失常和预防SCD的CPG。在参考部分中搜索SRs。两名独立研究人员使用PRISMA检查表和AMSTAR-2评估工具评估了符合条件的SR。
本研究包括两个用于室性心律失常和SCD的CPG。我们的分析中包括55个SR。在所有SR中,PRISMA平均得分为0.70分.得分最低的PRISMA项目与预先公布的方案的存在有关(项目5,得分0.17)。总的来说,40%的纳入SR被发现具有“极低”的AMSTAR-2评级。AMSTAR-2的得分最低的项目之一是报告资金来源(项目10)。纳入的4个CochraneSR在两种评估工具上的得分均高于非Cochrane研究,特别是在PRISMA整体完成(88.7%对69.7%)。
我们的研究表明,在ESC和ACCCPG中使用的SRs的方法学和报告质量不足,缺乏对AMSTAR-2和PRISMA清单的遵守就证明了这一点。鉴于CPGs对临床决策的重要性,以及最终的病人护理,CPG中使用的SRs中的方法学严谨性和质量报告应符合心脏病学领域的最高标准.
The main objective of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) supporting the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) clinical practice
guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). As a secondary objective, we sought to determine: (1) the proportion of Cochrane SRs were cited; and (2) whether Cochrane SRs scored higher on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) appraisals.
Cross-sectional analysis.
We searched for CPGs published by the ESC and the ACC from 2010 to 2020. We selected the CPGs for ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of SCD. The reference sections were searched for SRs. Two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR-2 assessment tool.
Two CPGs for ventricular arrhythmia and SCD were included in this study. Fifty-five SRs were included in our analysis. Across all SRs, the mean PRISMA score was 0.70. The lowest scoring PRISMA item related to the presence of a pre-published protocol (item 5, score 0.17). Overall, 40% of included SRs were found to have \'critically low\' AMSTAR-2 ratings. One of the lowest scoring items for AMSTAR-2 was reporting of sources of funding (item 10). The 4 Cochrane SRs that were included scored higher on both assessment tools than non-Cochrane studies, specifically in PRISMA overall completion (88.7% vs 69.7%).
Our study suggests the methodological and reporting quality of SRs used within ESC and ACC CPGs is insufficient, as demonstrated by the lack of adherence to both AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists. Given the importance of CPGs on clinical decision making, and ultimately patient care, the methodological rigour and quality reporting within SRs used in CPGs should be held to the highest standard within the field of cardiology.