A critical appraisal of acute sore throat guidelines using the AGREE II instrument: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicting international guidelines exist on the management of sore throat by antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument the quality of guidelines for uncomplicated acute group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) sore-throat. To make a sensitivity analysis restricted to guidelines with a rigour of development score higher than 60% and to describe their recommendations on scores, tests, and antibiotic therapy, including their justification. METHODS: A guideline literature review of acute GABHS sore throat, published between January 2000 and December 2019 in primary care and secondary care. The PubMed database, the Canadian Medical Association Infobase on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the International Network Guidelines were used. The quality of guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The guidelines were classified into 2 categories: high-quality guidelines had to rate >60% for the rigour of development score, the others were classified as low-quality guidelines. RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity between the 15 guidelines concerned the scores of the 6 assessment domains. Among them, 6 guidelines presented a score above 60% with regards to the rigor of development domain and used a systematic literature search method, citing meta-analyses of recent randomised clinical trials. Most of the 6 high-quality guidelines no longer recommended the systematic use of diagnostic scores and tests, nor antibiotic therapy to prevent acute rheumatic fever or loco-regional complications, except for high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Major discrepancies emphasise the need for only high-quality guidelines, based on adequately assessed evidence. Restricted antibiotic prescriptions to severe cases or high-risk patients would avoid antibiotic resistance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.269 | 0.599 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".