Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Paediatric obesity rates remain high despite extensive efforts to prevent and treat obesity in children. We investigated the quality of the methodology and reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning paediatric content in US clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In June 2016 we searched guideline clearinghouses and professional organization websites for guidelines published by national or professional organizations in the United States from January 2007 onwards. In our primary, a priori analysis, we used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instruments to score SRs and meta-analyses that included paediatric populations and were cited by included CPGs. In a secondary, post hoc analysis, we determined the extent to which US CPGs use available, relevant SRs and meta-analyses compared with non-US CPGs. Eight US-based CPGs with 27 references to 22 unique SRs were found. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were low overall, with only three SRs having 'high' methodological quality. Items dealing with bias assessments and search strategies had especially low scores. US CPGs were also older on average and cited fewer SRs than their international counterparts. Low quality scores and dated guidelines should be a cause for concern among practicing clinicians and a call to action for future guideline developers, publishers and research institutions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)34-45
Number of pages12
JournalClinical obesity
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Pediatric Obesity
Practice Guidelines
Meta-Analysis
Guidelines
Pediatrics
Research
Population

Keywords

  • child
  • clinical practice guideline
  • methodological quality
  • obesity

Cite this

@article{989ed50dc5b7421b930a4da28f6ea957,
title = "Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity",
abstract = "Paediatric obesity rates remain high despite extensive efforts to prevent and treat obesity in children. We investigated the quality of the methodology and reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning paediatric content in US clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In June 2016 we searched guideline clearinghouses and professional organization websites for guidelines published by national or professional organizations in the United States from January 2007 onwards. In our primary, a priori analysis, we used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instruments to score SRs and meta-analyses that included paediatric populations and were cited by included CPGs. In a secondary, post hoc analysis, we determined the extent to which US CPGs use available, relevant SRs and meta-analyses compared with non-US CPGs. Eight US-based CPGs with 27 references to 22 unique SRs were found. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were low overall, with only three SRs having 'high' methodological quality. Items dealing with bias assessments and search strategies had especially low scores. US CPGs were also older on average and cited fewer SRs than their international counterparts. Low quality scores and dated guidelines should be a cause for concern among practicing clinicians and a call to action for future guideline developers, publishers and research institutions.",
keywords = "child, clinical practice guideline, methodological quality, obesity",
author = "T. Nissen and C. Wayant and A. Wahlstrom and P. Sinnett and Colony Fugate and James Herrington and Matt Vassar",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cob.12174",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "34--45",
journal = "Clinical obesity",
issn = "1758-8111",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity

AU - Nissen, T.

AU - Wayant, C.

AU - Wahlstrom, A.

AU - Sinnett, P.

AU - Fugate, Colony

AU - Herrington, James

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Paediatric obesity rates remain high despite extensive efforts to prevent and treat obesity in children. We investigated the quality of the methodology and reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning paediatric content in US clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In June 2016 we searched guideline clearinghouses and professional organization websites for guidelines published by national or professional organizations in the United States from January 2007 onwards. In our primary, a priori analysis, we used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instruments to score SRs and meta-analyses that included paediatric populations and were cited by included CPGs. In a secondary, post hoc analysis, we determined the extent to which US CPGs use available, relevant SRs and meta-analyses compared with non-US CPGs. Eight US-based CPGs with 27 references to 22 unique SRs were found. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were low overall, with only three SRs having 'high' methodological quality. Items dealing with bias assessments and search strategies had especially low scores. US CPGs were also older on average and cited fewer SRs than their international counterparts. Low quality scores and dated guidelines should be a cause for concern among practicing clinicians and a call to action for future guideline developers, publishers and research institutions.

AB - Paediatric obesity rates remain high despite extensive efforts to prevent and treat obesity in children. We investigated the quality of the methodology and reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning paediatric content in US clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In June 2016 we searched guideline clearinghouses and professional organization websites for guidelines published by national or professional organizations in the United States from January 2007 onwards. In our primary, a priori analysis, we used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instruments to score SRs and meta-analyses that included paediatric populations and were cited by included CPGs. In a secondary, post hoc analysis, we determined the extent to which US CPGs use available, relevant SRs and meta-analyses compared with non-US CPGs. Eight US-based CPGs with 27 references to 22 unique SRs were found. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were low overall, with only three SRs having 'high' methodological quality. Items dealing with bias assessments and search strategies had especially low scores. US CPGs were also older on average and cited fewer SRs than their international counterparts. Low quality scores and dated guidelines should be a cause for concern among practicing clinicians and a call to action for future guideline developers, publishers and research institutions.

KW - child

KW - clinical practice guideline

KW - methodological quality

KW - obesity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050579852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cob.12174

DO - 10.1111/cob.12174

M3 - Article

C2 - 28112500

AN - SCOPUS:85050579852

VL - 7

SP - 34

EP - 45

JO - Clinical obesity

JF - Clinical obesity

SN - 1758-8111

IS - 1

ER -