Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025
Evaluating the Methodological Rigor and Recommendation Excellence of TAVR Guidelines: Insights from AGREE II and AGREE-REX Instruments.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Xu Jianguo, Zheng Qingyong, Cui Yating, Wang Junfei, Xie Yafei, Li Lin, Gao Ya, Liu Ming, Qin Yu, Sun Jiaxuan, Yi Kang, Tian Jinhui
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a critical innovation for managing severe aortic stenosis, prompting the development of numerous clinical practice guidelines worldwide. This study systematically evaluates the guideline development methodologies of major international TAVR guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, aiming to enhance understanding of current development processes.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and specialized guideline repositories. Twenty-four TAVR-specific guidelines were independently evaluated by four reviewers using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. The guidelines were categorized as evidence- or consensus-based, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS to standardize scores and assess inter-rater reliability.
RESULTS: Systematic assessment revealed significant methodological variations across guidelines. The AGREE II evaluation showed the highest performance in scope and purpose (83.9 ± 10.0%) but lower scores in rigor of development (43.5 ± 29.0%) and applicability (42.4 ± 26.8%). The AGREE-REX analysis demonstrated stronger performance in implementability (78.6 ± 14.5%) while identifying gaps in the integration of values and preferences (35.7 ± 17.2%). Evidence-based guidelines consistently outperformed consensus-based ones across multiple domains, particularly in terms of methodological rigor and implementation planning.
DISCUSSION: This evaluation highlights key areas for improving guideline development methodology, including standardized evidence evaluation processes, systematic stakeholder engagement, and structured implementation planning. The considerable variability in methodological quality underscores the need for more standardized approaches.
CONCLUSION: Current TAVR guidelines exhibit significant heterogeneity in methodological quality, with evidence-based guidelines demonstrating superior performance in development rigor and implementation planning. Systematic approaches to evidence synthesis and stakeholder engagement are crucial for high-quality guideline development.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and specialized guideline repositories. Twenty-four TAVR-specific guidelines were independently evaluated by four reviewers using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. The guidelines were categorized as evidence- or consensus-based, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS to standardize scores and assess inter-rater reliability.
RESULTS: Systematic assessment revealed significant methodological variations across guidelines. The AGREE II evaluation showed the highest performance in scope and purpose (83.9 ± 10.0%) but lower scores in rigor of development (43.5 ± 29.0%) and applicability (42.4 ± 26.8%). The AGREE-REX analysis demonstrated stronger performance in implementability (78.6 ± 14.5%) while identifying gaps in the integration of values and preferences (35.7 ± 17.2%). Evidence-based guidelines consistently outperformed consensus-based ones across multiple domains, particularly in terms of methodological rigor and implementation planning.
DISCUSSION: This evaluation highlights key areas for improving guideline development methodology, including standardized evidence evaluation processes, systematic stakeholder engagement, and structured implementation planning. The considerable variability in methodological quality underscores the need for more standardized approaches.
CONCLUSION: Current TAVR guidelines exhibit significant heterogeneity in methodological quality, with evidence-based guidelines demonstrating superior performance in development rigor and implementation planning. Systematic approaches to evidence synthesis and stakeholder engagement are crucial for high-quality guideline development.