tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
BMJ Open
. 2024 Sep 10;14(9):e086301.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086301. Clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review
Yue Zhang[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuxi Li[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Dongling Zhong[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Huijing Li[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xiaobo Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wenjing Tang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuan Chen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Dongchuan Pan[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Rongjiang Jin[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Juan Li[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Objectives: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19, summarise recommendations of rehabilitation assessments and interventions and evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations.
Design: Systematic review.
Data sources: PubMed and Embase databases and five online guideline repositories: The National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and WHO were searched from their inception to August 2024. In addition, we reviewed reference lists of eligible citations and searched the grey literature on the relevant websites.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included CPGs and expert consensus statements which provided information about rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19. To be eligible, the CPGs and expert consensus statements were issued in English by a nationally or internationally recognised government authority, medical/academic society or organisation. If there were multiple versions of the guidelines, we included the latest one. The translations, interpretations and abstracts of guidelines were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis: All recommendations on rehabilitation assessments and interventions for COVID-19 were extracted and summarised. Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, and two other reviewers assessed the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement of included CPGs and expert consensus statements. We used the Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements.
Results: A total of 31 CPGs and expert consensus statements were included. 14 guidelines provided recommendations for rehabilitation assessments. At the early, development, critical and recovery stages of COVID-19, the most frequently recommended were exercise therapy (25.8%, 35.5%, 25.8% and 58.1%, respectively). According to AGREE II, 17 included guidelines were assessed as low methodological quality (35%-56%), 10 guidelines were rated as moderate quality (46%- 62%) and four had high quality (69%-79%). Among 31 eligible guidelines, the reporting rate of 22 items in the RIGHT checklist ranged from 10% to 100%. The included guidelines were consistent with the reference guidelines (80%-100%). Only one guideline existed minor (60%-80%) disagreements in respiratory muscle training relative to the reference guideline.
Conclusions: Rehabilitation assessments and interventions should be implemented consistently throughout the entire process of COVID-19. The recommendations should be tailored to each stage of COVID-19. The methodological and reporting qualities of several guidelines remain suboptimal. Therefore, developers should adhere strictly to the AGREE II standard and RIGHT checklist to formulate and publish CPGs and expert consensus statements with high quality.
Prospero registration number: CRD42020190761.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 infection; protocols and guidelines; rehabilitation medicine; systematic review.
. 2024 Sep 10;14(9):e086301.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086301. Clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review
Yue Zhang[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuxi Li[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Dongling Zhong[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Huijing Li[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xiaobo Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wenjing Tang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuan Chen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Dongchuan Pan[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Rongjiang Jin[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Juan Li[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 39260851
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086301
Objectives: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19, summarise recommendations of rehabilitation assessments and interventions and evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations.
Design: Systematic review.
Data sources: PubMed and Embase databases and five online guideline repositories: The National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and WHO were searched from their inception to August 2024. In addition, we reviewed reference lists of eligible citations and searched the grey literature on the relevant websites.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included CPGs and expert consensus statements which provided information about rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19. To be eligible, the CPGs and expert consensus statements were issued in English by a nationally or internationally recognised government authority, medical/academic society or organisation. If there were multiple versions of the guidelines, we included the latest one. The translations, interpretations and abstracts of guidelines were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis: All recommendations on rehabilitation assessments and interventions for COVID-19 were extracted and summarised. Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, and two other reviewers assessed the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement of included CPGs and expert consensus statements. We used the Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements.
Results: A total of 31 CPGs and expert consensus statements were included. 14 guidelines provided recommendations for rehabilitation assessments. At the early, development, critical and recovery stages of COVID-19, the most frequently recommended were exercise therapy (25.8%, 35.5%, 25.8% and 58.1%, respectively). According to AGREE II, 17 included guidelines were assessed as low methodological quality (35%-56%), 10 guidelines were rated as moderate quality (46%- 62%) and four had high quality (69%-79%). Among 31 eligible guidelines, the reporting rate of 22 items in the RIGHT checklist ranged from 10% to 100%. The included guidelines were consistent with the reference guidelines (80%-100%). Only one guideline existed minor (60%-80%) disagreements in respiratory muscle training relative to the reference guideline.
Conclusions: Rehabilitation assessments and interventions should be implemented consistently throughout the entire process of COVID-19. The recommendations should be tailored to each stage of COVID-19. The methodological and reporting qualities of several guidelines remain suboptimal. Therefore, developers should adhere strictly to the AGREE II standard and RIGHT checklist to formulate and publish CPGs and expert consensus statements with high quality.
Prospero registration number: CRD42020190761.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 infection; protocols and guidelines; rehabilitation medicine; systematic review.