A Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacological Treatments of Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare chronic disease characterized by complement-mediated hemolysis, thrombosis, and bone marrow failure. This study aims to identify methodological limitations in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the treatment of PNH. Thus, we critically evaluate the guidelines, highlighting relevant recommendations supported by high-quality evidence to improve healthcare strategies. Methodology: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, COCHRANE, and TRIP databases. From 1995 initially identified references, 1649 articles underwent title and abstract screening. Twenty-three references were selected for full-text screening. Ultimately, 12 CPGs were included. Four independent reviewers assessed the CPGs’ methodological quality using the instruments “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and “Recommendation Excellence” (AGREE-REX). Their characteristics, as well as any differences in recommendations, were summarized and compared. Results: Twelve guidelines published from 2011 to 2022 by Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Canada, Turkey, Scotland, and the United Kingdom were included. The UK’s and Brazil’s CPGs received the highest scores. Overall, the CPGs scored strongly in the domains of “Scope and Purpose” and “Clarity of Presentation” since they addressed fundamental aspects, such as aim, specific health questions, target population, and language. All guidelines presented deficiencies in the “Editorial Independence” in AGREE II, and “Values and Preferences” in AGREE-REX, demonstrating the need for a careful revision and improvement of future versions. Conclusion: We found disparities in the methodological quality of the available CPGs. Despite being extremely important, recommendations on adapting treatment to local policies and further updates that include newly approved medications were absent. Approaches that prioritize the engagement of methodologists and multidisciplinary collaborators may also lead to higher quality CPGs for treating PNH.
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 | 0.331 | 0.686 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".