Skip to main content

Languages

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines and consensus statements on computed tomography for coronary artery disease

Date and Location

Session: 

O4.01.3

Date

Monday 23 September 2013 - 13:30 - 15:00

Location

Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

pin yang

Contact person

Jinhui Tian
Abstract text
Background:To improve diagnostic standardized and diagnostic accuracy on computed tomography (CT) for coronary artery disease (CAD).However, little is known about the methodological quality of these guidelines in CT for CAD. Objectives:To evaluate the methodological quality of existing guidelines on CT for CAD according to the AGREE instrument, so as to regulate the development on CT for CAD guidelines and provide recommendations for these guidelines and consensuses. Methods:Eight databases, three main websites of guideline and Google engines were searched for CAD on CT. Guidelines included were published by Dec 2012. The methodological quality of the guidelines and consensuses was assessed by one author independently using the AGREE Ⅱ instrument. Results:a)19 guidelines of CAD on CT were included for evaluation , Of 10 were consensuses, nine were clinical guidelines;b)the number of guidelines was increasing each year and reached a peak in 2010,5 guidelines in 2010;c)Table 1 shows that the stratification analysis of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation results on six domains of nine clinical guidelines and 10 consensuses(10 guidelines were not recommendation, two guidelines were moderate recommendation, seven guidelines were positive recommendation);d)there were no any differences between more than ten experts and less than nine experts in clinical guidelines and consensuses (P>0.05);e)The quality of clinical guidelines was not obviously different with the quality of consensuses;f)there were statistical differences between before the AGREE Ⅱ released(≤2009 years) and after the AGREE Ⅱreleased(≥2010 years) on five domains besides the applicability domain of clinical guideline on CT for CAD(P<0.05). Conclusions:The quality and transparency of the guideline development process and the consistency in the reporting of CAD on CT guidelines need to be improved. The quality of reporting of guidelines was low.
Attachments