皮肤病学制图项目全球指南(GUIDEMAP)评估高负担皮肤病临床实践指南(CPG)的方法学质量。本文对接触性皮炎进行综述。我们搜索了MEDLINE,Embase,PubMed,WebofScience,科克伦图书馆,Emcare,认识论,PsycINFO和学术搜索总理为CPG在2018年11月1日至2023年11月1日之间发布。手动搜索了指定的指南资源。两位作者独立进行了筛查,数据提取和质量评估。使用的工具是评估研究和评估指南(AGREE)II报告清单,美国医学研究所(IOM)的可信度标准,医疗保健研究和质量机构的国家指南信息交换所对可信标准(NEATS)仪器和Lenzer红旗的遵守程度。包括25个CPG,在他们处理的主题和方法论质量上都表现出异质性。而来自丹麦的手部湿疹管理CPG,欧洲和荷兰得分最高,大多数CPG都没有明确,没有偏见,值得信赖和以证据为基础。利益冲突的披露得分很高,需要改进的领域包括“建议的强度和措辞”,\'适用性\',\'更新\'和\'外部审阅\'。坚持“同意二”并对建议进行分级,评估,开发和评估(等级)提高了方法学质量。
The Global
Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice
guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified
guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of
Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine\'s (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality\'s National
Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer\'s Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include \'strength and wording of recommendations\', \'applicability\', \'updating\' and \'external review\'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.