Evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

Xing-Zong Huang, Meng-Yao Zheng, Yun-Ying Gong, Jin-Hong Wu, Lin Zhang, Hai-Yu He, Da-Li Sun
{"title":"Evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.","authors":"Xing-Zong Huang,&nbsp;Meng-Yao Zheng,&nbsp;Yun-Ying Gong,&nbsp;Jin-Hong Wu,&nbsp;Lin Zhang,&nbsp;Hai-Yu He,&nbsp;Da-Li Sun","doi":"10.1093/dote/doac075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the unclear quality of the current guidelines, users may be confused about how to diagnose and treat achalasia. The objective of this work is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for diagnosing and treating achalasia and to determine the heterogeneity among recommendations. We systematically searched literature databases to retrieve relevant guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Key recommendations in the guidelines were extracted, and the reasons for the heterogeneity of the key recommendations between different guidelines were further analyzed. Seven guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia are included in this study. The overall score of three guidelines exceeded 60%. The average score in domain 5 was the lowest, at 41.8%. The average scores in domain 2, domain 3, and domain 6 were also low, at 45.4%, 57.1% and 56.9%, respectively. The main recommendations and quality of evidence for different guidelines vary greatly, mainly due to the different emphases among different guidelines, the lack of systematic retrieval, or the unfairness of evidence use in some guidelines. There are considerable differences in the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for achalasia. Additionally, the differences in the main recommendations and evidence support among guidelines are also obvious. Guideline developers should improve the above related factors to decrease the heterogeneity, and they should further formulate or update the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":11255,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":"36 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doac075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to the unclear quality of the current guidelines, users may be confused about how to diagnose and treat achalasia. The objective of this work is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for diagnosing and treating achalasia and to determine the heterogeneity among recommendations. We systematically searched literature databases to retrieve relevant guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Key recommendations in the guidelines were extracted, and the reasons for the heterogeneity of the key recommendations between different guidelines were further analyzed. Seven guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia are included in this study. The overall score of three guidelines exceeded 60%. The average score in domain 5 was the lowest, at 41.8%. The average scores in domain 2, domain 3, and domain 6 were also low, at 45.4%, 57.1% and 56.9%, respectively. The main recommendations and quality of evidence for different guidelines vary greatly, mainly due to the different emphases among different guidelines, the lack of systematic retrieval, or the unfairness of evidence use in some guidelines. There are considerable differences in the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for achalasia. Additionally, the differences in the main recommendations and evidence support among guidelines are also obvious. Guideline developers should improve the above related factors to decrease the heterogeneity, and they should further formulate or update the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
失弛缓症诊断和治疗指南的评价。
由于目前指南的质量不明确,用户可能对如何诊断和治疗失弛缓症感到困惑。这项工作的目的是系统地评估目前诊断和治疗失弛缓症指南的方法学质量,并确定建议之间的异质性。我们系统地检索文献数据库,检索有关失弛缓症的诊断和治疗指南。研究与评价指南II评估工具用于评估纳入指南的质量。提取指南中的关键建议,并进一步分析不同指南间关键建议存在异质性的原因。本研究包括七项关于贲门失弛缓症的诊断和治疗指南。三项指标的综合得分均超过60%。第五领域的平均得分最低,为41.8%。领域2、领域3和领域6的平均得分也很低,分别为45.4%、57.1%和56.9%。不同指南的主要推荐和证据质量差异较大,主要原因是不同指南的侧重点不同,缺乏系统检索,或部分指南证据使用不公平。在失弛缓症的诊断和治疗指南的方法学质量方面存在相当大的差异。此外,各指南在主要建议和证据支持方面的差异也很明显。指南的制定者应改善上述相关因素,减少异质性,并进一步制定或更新贲门失弛缓症的诊断和治疗指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of perioperative oral swallowing function with post-esophagectomy outcomes and nutritional statuses in patients with esophageal cancer. Safety and efficacy of EsoFLIP dilation in patients with esophageal dysmotility: a systematic review. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings that do no not explain dysphagia are associated with underutilization of high-resolution manometry. Risk of metastasis among patients diagnosed with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic follow-up. Evaluation of indocyanine green tracheobronchial fluorescence (ICG-TBF) via nebulization during minimally invasive esophagectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1