Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024
Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Medina-Aedo Melixa, Günther Matías, Arauz Ibell, Domancic Stefan, Diaz-Menai Samanta, Gregorio Sofia, León-García Montserrat, Santero Marilina, Pardo-Hernadez Hector, Alonso-Coello Pablo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the inclusion of individuals' perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs.
RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003).
CONCLUSION: The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs.
RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003).
CONCLUSION: The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.