International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
Evaluation of guidelines on the use of vaginal mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse using the AGREE II instrument.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Tsiapakidou Sofia, Campani Nygaard Christiana, Pape Janna, de Mattos Lourenço Thais R, Falconi Gabriele, Betschart Cornelia, Doumouchtsis Stergios K, CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women's Health (https://i-chorus.org/)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the content and quality of national and international guidelines on vaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from inception to March 2020 and organizations' websites. The quality of the guidelines was assessed independently by six appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.
RESULTS: Five guidelines were included. Most guidelines recommended individualized treatments, clinical observation, and conservative treatment for asymptomatic women discouraging the use of mesh. Vaginal pessary and pelvic floor muscle training are unanimously considered effective treatments. Only two guidelines recommended weight loss. Each guideline recommended patient counseling supported by data on success rates and complications. Most guidelines highlighted the importance of a specialist experienced surgeon, multidisciplinary teams, and national/international registries. All guidelines highlighted potential benefits of the use of mesh and reported possible complications. The overall quality rating ranged between 4.2 and 6.3, suggestive of moderate to high quality. The highest mean score (92.5%) pertained to "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentation", and the lowest to "Editorial Independence" (18%). Three out of five guidelines were "strongly recommended" by the appraisers.
CONCLUSION: Although most guidelines were of moderate to high quality, methodological applicability, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence were domains with low scores.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from inception to March 2020 and organizations' websites. The quality of the guidelines was assessed independently by six appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.
RESULTS: Five guidelines were included. Most guidelines recommended individualized treatments, clinical observation, and conservative treatment for asymptomatic women discouraging the use of mesh. Vaginal pessary and pelvic floor muscle training are unanimously considered effective treatments. Only two guidelines recommended weight loss. Each guideline recommended patient counseling supported by data on success rates and complications. Most guidelines highlighted the importance of a specialist experienced surgeon, multidisciplinary teams, and national/international registries. All guidelines highlighted potential benefits of the use of mesh and reported possible complications. The overall quality rating ranged between 4.2 and 6.3, suggestive of moderate to high quality. The highest mean score (92.5%) pertained to "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentation", and the lowest to "Editorial Independence" (18%). Three out of five guidelines were "strongly recommended" by the appraisers.
CONCLUSION: Although most guidelines were of moderate to high quality, methodological applicability, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence were domains with low scores.