SynthesisPloS one2018
Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicians' and Patients' Experiences and Perceptions on the Prevention and Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Perioperative patient safety recommendations: systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Laminar airflow ventilation systems in orthopaedic operating room do not prevent surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Surgical Site Infection Prevention Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 50 Highly Cited Articles.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- Global View of Clinical Guidelines on Prevention of Surgical Site Infections for Health Care Professionals: A Scoping Review.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2023Review
- Guidelines, guidelines and more guidelines for haemorrhoid treatment: A review to sort the wheat from the chaff.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Review
- Evidence-based nutrition guidelines for cancer survivors in Europe: a call for action.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- The Quality and Clinical Applicability of Recommendations in Ostomy Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Wound care practices across two acute care settings: A comparative study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2020Observational
- Optimizing compliance with surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery at a referral teaching hospital in southern Iran: clinical and economic impact.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
- Assessing the Quality of Existing Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chemotherapy Drug Extravasation by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) occur in up to 10% of surgeries. Wound care practices to prevent infections are guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), yet their contribution to improving patient outcomes relies on their quality and adoption in practice. We critically evaluated the quality of CPGs for SSI prevention during pre-, intra- and post-operative phases of care.
methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature from 1990-2018 using the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest databases and five guidelines repositories. We extracted characteristics of each guideline using purposely-developed data collection tools. We assessed overall quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.
resultsCombined searches of databases and repositories yielded 5,910 citations. Of these, we reviewed 215 full text documents. The final sample included 15 documents: 6 complete CPGs, 3 CPG updates, and 6 supplementary documents. The overall %mean scores across AGREE II domains for CPGs were: 1) scope and purpose (%mean ± SD = 86.3±23.5); 2) stakeholder involvement (%mean ± SD = 64±31.0); 3) rigour of development (%mean ± SD = 68.7±30.6); 4) clarity and presentation (%mean ± SD = 88.5±16.7); 5) applicability (%mean ± SD = 44±30.2); and, 5) editorial independence (%mean ± SD = 61±37.6). Based on individual AGREE II domains and overall scores, we appraised 4 out of 6 CPGs (inclusive of updates) as "recommended" for use in practice. Overall agreement among appraisers was excellent (ICC 0.86 [95%CI 0.73-0.94] - 0.98 [95%CI 0.96-0.99]; p <0.001). DISCUSSION: International interest in CPG development has resulted in refinements to methodologies, which has led to improvements in the overall quality of the product. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION: Given the domains that received the lowest scores, it is clear that we need more consumer involvement and better consideration of the implementation challenges with CPG uptake and sustainability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.