A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for management of four common complications after spinal cord injury
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Complications such as pressure sores, pulmonary infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are common after spinal cord injury (SCI). These have serious consequences for patients' physical, social, and vocational well-being. Several authoritative organizations have developed guidelines for managing these complications after SCI. PURPOSE: We aim to systematically review and appraise guidelines on the management of four common complications (pressure sores, pulmonary infection, UTI, and VTE) after SCI as well as to summarize relevant recommendations and assess the quality of their supporting evidence. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, as well as guideline-specific databases (eg, National Guideline Clearinghouse) and Google Scholar, from January 2000 to January 2022. We included the most updated guidelines developed by specific authoritative organizations. We evaluated the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation 2nd edition instrument, which measures six domains (eg, applicability). Recommendations extracted from guidelines were categorized as for, against, or neither for nor against. An evidence assessment was adopted to classify the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good. RESULTS: Eleven guidelines from 2005 to 2020 were included, all of which, among the six domains, scored lowest in the domain of applicability. For pressure sores, guidelines recommended for skin inspection, repositioning, and the use of pressure reduction equipment as preventive measures and dressings, debridement, and surgery as treatment measures. For pulmonary infection, guidelines recommended for physical (eg, the use of an insufflation-exsufflation device) and pharmacological measures (eg, the use of bronchodilators). For UTI, guidelines recommended for antibiotics as a treatment measure but recommended against cranberries, methenamine salts, and acidification or alkalinization agents as preventive measures. For VTE prophylaxis, five guidelines recommended for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Three guidelines recommended against unfractionated heparin, whereas one guideline recommended for it. Most of the supporting evidence was of poor quality (130/139), and the rest was of fair quality (9/139). CONCLUSIONS: For pressure sores, pulmonary infection, and UTI, evidence of poor to fair quality indicated consistent recommendations for prevention and treatment measures. For VTE, LMWH was consistently recommended, whereas recommendations on the use of unfractionated heparin were controversial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».