Tobacco use insights · 2025
Quality Assessment of Guidelines on Tobacco Cessation: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Bhadauria Upendra Singh, Sachdeva Akshat, Priya Harsh, Chawla Amrita, Chahar Puneet, Singh Rana Jugdeep
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Numerous guidelines have been developed worldwide to support healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based interventions to help individuals quit smoking and other forms of tobacco use. The evaluation of the quality of the guidelines of tobacco cessation is however deficient and lacking.
METHODOLOGY: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Databases were electronically searched. Additional search was carried out in National Institute for Health Care Excellence, Guidelines International Network, Google Scholar and references of relevant articles to screen studies relevant to this review. Guidelines on both health and allied health professionals in English language were included. The assessment of the guidelines in this review was carried out using the AGREE II instrument by four appraisers.
RESULTS: Twenty guidelines were included in this review. A comparative evaluation of all the guidelines revealed consistently higher scores in clarity of presentation domain (74.4 ± 20.9) followed by scope and purpose (65.23 ± 17.19), stakeholder involvement (63.84 ± 18.29) and rigour of development domain (61.76 ± 20.24). Lower scores were reported in Applicability (59.18 ± 18.02) and least in Editorial Independence domain (58.29 ± 19.36).
CONCLUSION: Further guidelines developed should address the gaps identified in this review and be both evidence-based and feasible to implement in diverse clinical contexts.
METHODOLOGY: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Databases were electronically searched. Additional search was carried out in National Institute for Health Care Excellence, Guidelines International Network, Google Scholar and references of relevant articles to screen studies relevant to this review. Guidelines on both health and allied health professionals in English language were included. The assessment of the guidelines in this review was carried out using the AGREE II instrument by four appraisers.
RESULTS: Twenty guidelines were included in this review. A comparative evaluation of all the guidelines revealed consistently higher scores in clarity of presentation domain (74.4 ± 20.9) followed by scope and purpose (65.23 ± 17.19), stakeholder involvement (63.84 ± 18.29) and rigour of development domain (61.76 ± 20.24). Lower scores were reported in Applicability (59.18 ± 18.02) and least in Editorial Independence domain (58.29 ± 19.36).
CONCLUSION: Further guidelines developed should address the gaps identified in this review and be both evidence-based and feasible to implement in diverse clinical contexts.