Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines aim to support clinicians in providing clinical care and should be supported by evidence. There is currently no information on whether clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are supported by evidence. Methods: We performed a systematic review and identified clinical practice guidelines of laparoscopic surgery published in PubMed and Embase between March 2016 and February 2019. We performed an independent assessment of the strength of recommendation based on the evidence provided by the guideline authors. We used the ‘Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II’ (AGREE-II) Tool’s ‘rigour of development’, ‘clarity of presentation’, and ‘editorial independence’ domains to assess the quality of the guidelines. We performed a mixed-effects generalised linear regression modelling. Results: We retrieved 63 guidelines containing 1905 guideline statements. The median proportion of ‘difference in rating’ of strength of recommendation between the guideline authors and independent assessment was 33.3% (quartiles: 18.3%, 55.8%). The ‘rigour of development’ domain score (odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.01–0.48 per unit increase in rigour score; P value = 0.0071) and whether the strength of recommendation was ‘strong’ by independent evaluation (odds ratio 0.09 (95% confidence intervals 0.06–0.13; P value < 0.001) were the only determinants of difference in rating between the guideline authors and independent evaluation. Conclusion: A considerable proportion of guideline statements in clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are not supported by evidence. Guideline authors systematically overrated the strength of the recommendation (i.e., even when the evidence points to weak recommendation, guideline authors made strong recommendations).