SynthesisWellcome open research2024
An assessment of variation in quality of hypertension guidelines across income settings using the AGREE II tool.
Synthesis in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Hypertension affects over one billion people worldwide, posing a significant global health burden. Clinical practice guidelines could play a key role in guiding healthcare providers in improving hypertension management. However, how the quality of hypertension CPGs differs across country income settings is not well understood. This study aims to explore variation in the quality of hypertension CPGs, comparing low-, middle-, and high-income countries, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. Methods: A Medline and grey literature search was conducted to identify hypertension CPGs in English from every country from January 2012 to September 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed and scored each CPG against the AGREE II tool. Results were described and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for statistically significant difference in the domain scores across country income groups. Results: Forty-three CPGs were included for analysis from across income settings. Guidelines from HICs scored higher in four out of the six domains. The highest scoring domain was 4: "clarity and presentation" (median score 83%), the lowest scoring was domain 6 "editorial independence" (median score 0%). Statistically significant differences between income settings were observed for domain 3 "rigour of development" (p <0.001), domain 4 "clarity and presentation" (p = 0.03) and domain 6 "editorial independence" (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Whilst some variation exists in guideline quality across country income levels, the greatest degree of variation exists across the domains of the AGREE II tool. Global efforts to improve the quality of hypertension guidelines should focus on the transparent statement of editorial independence of guideline committees and apply rigorous replicable methods in the authoring of guidelines. Establishing national and international communities of practice to collaborate across income settings may reduce duplication of resource, allow for shared learning and promote the development of high-quality hypertension CPGs.
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.