A systematic review and appraisal of the quality of practice guidelines for the management of<i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i>infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Clinical guidelines help ensure consistent care informed by current evidence. As shifts in antimicrobial resistance continue to influence first-line treatment, up-to-date guidelines are important for preventing treatment failure. A guideline9s development process will influence its recommendations and users9 trust. <h3>Objective</h3> To assess the quality of current gonorrhoea guidelines9 development processes. <h3>Data sources</h3> Multiple databases. <h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3> Original and current English-language guidelines targeting health professionals and containing treatment recommendations for uncomplicated gonorrhoea in the general adult population. <h3>Study appraisal and synthesis methods</h3> Two appraisers assessed the guidelines independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Scores were combined as per the AGREE II users9 manual. <h3>Results</h3> We identified 10 guidelines meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the gonorrhoea treatment guidelines varied. Most scored poorly on <i>Rigour of Development</i>; information on the evidence review process and methods for formulating recommendations was often missing. The <i>WHO Guidelines for the Treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> and <i>UK National Guideline for the Management of Gonorrhoea in Adults</i> scored the highest on <i>Rigour of Development</i>. Methods to address conflicts of interest were often not described in the materials reviewed. Implementation of recommendations was often not addressed. <h3>Limitations</h3> By limiting our study to English-language guidelines, a small number of guidelines we identified were excluded. Our analysis was limited to either published or online materials that were readily available to users. We could not differentiate between items addressed in the development process but not documented from items that were not addressed. <h3>Conclusions and implications of key findings</h3> Gonorrhoea treatment guidelines may slow antimicrobial resistance. Many current guidelines are not in line with the current guideline development best practices; this might undermine the perceived trustworthiness of guidelines. By identifying current limitations, this study can help improve the quality of future guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".