Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Surgery 2/2020

Open Access 01-04-2020 | Laparoscopy | original article

Differences in the recommendation of laparoscopic clinical practice guidelines according to the recommendation system—Re-evaluation using GRADE

A pilot study

Authors: J. Leung, A. Ng, K. Gurusamy

Published in: European Surgery | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Summary

Background

Guidelines are essential for safe and effective treatment. They usually have multiple statements. Since the supporting information for the guidelines varies widely, the degree to which these statements are recommended also differ. We rely on recommendation systems for grading the recommendations for different statements. All recommendation systems have different grading criteria and they could potentially cause confusion and affect the quality of recommendations. Therefore, there is a need to determine the extent of variation and explore the potential reasons behind it.

Methods

A purposive sampling on PubMed was conducted to find four different laparoscopic guidelines using different methods to grade the recommendations. Each statement was then re-evaluated using the GRADE recommendation system.

Results

The guidelines used GRADE, Oxford Methodology, SIGN, and ‘bespoke’ systems. The number of statements with similar strength for the different statements as the re-evaluated strengths in the four guidelines were 24.1, 62.2, 35.8 and 50.0% respectively.

Conclusion

There were a wide variety of recommendation systems for laparoscopic guidelines and there were differences between the recommendations from the guidelines using GRADE, Oxford Methodology, SIGN and the ‘Bespoke’ system when re-evaluated by GRADE. A systematic review of recent laparoscopic guidelines might provide the extent and the main reasons of the problem.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Taylor E, Thomas J, Whitehouse L, et al. Population-based study of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery 2006–2008. Br J Surg. 2013;100(4):553–60.CrossRef Taylor E, Thomas J, Whitehouse L, et al. Population-based study of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery 2006–2008. Br J Surg. 2013;100(4):553–60.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kang C, Halabi W, Luo R, et al. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):724–31.CrossRef Kang C, Halabi W, Luo R, et al. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):724–31.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Spanjersberg W, van Sambeeck J, Bremers A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis for laparoscopic versus open colon surgery with or without an ERAS programme. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3443–53.CrossRef Spanjersberg W, van Sambeeck J, Bremers A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis for laparoscopic versus open colon surgery with or without an ERAS programme. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3443–53.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bemelman W, Warusavitarne J, Sampietro G, et al. ECCO-ESCP Consensus on Surgery for Crohn’s Disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(1):1–16. Bemelman W, Warusavitarne J, Sampietro G, et al. ECCO-ESCP Consensus on Surgery for Crohn’s Disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(1):1–16.
6.
go back to reference Deijen C, Vasmel J, de Lange-de Klerk E, et al. Ten-year outcomes of a randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;31(6):2607–15.CrossRef Deijen C, Vasmel J, de Lange-de Klerk E, et al. Ten-year outcomes of a randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;31(6):2607–15.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Woolf S, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.CrossRef Woolf S, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRef Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Grondin S, Schieman C. Evidence-based medicine. In: Ferguson M, editor. Levels of evidence and evaluation systems. Difficult decisions in thoracic surgery. London: Springer; 2010. pp. 13–22. Grondin S, Schieman C. Evidence-based medicine. In: Ferguson M, editor. Levels of evidence and evaluation systems. Difficult decisions in thoracic surgery. London: Springer; 2010. pp. 13–22.
13.
go back to reference Harbour R, et al. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334.CrossRef Harbour R, et al. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Baird AG, Lawrence JR. Guidelines: is bigger better? A review of SIGN guidelines. Bmj Open. 2014;4:e4278.CrossRef Baird AG, Lawrence JR. Guidelines: is bigger better? A review of SIGN guidelines. Bmj Open. 2014;4:e4278.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sandberg E, Hehenkamp W, Geomini P, et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications: clinical practice guideline. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(3):597.CrossRef Sandberg E, Hehenkamp W, Geomini P, et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications: clinical practice guideline. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(3):597.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS])—Part 1. Surg Endosc. 2013;28(1):2–29.CrossRef Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS])—Part 1. Surg Endosc. 2013;28(1):2–29.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I, et al. The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;268(1):11–8.CrossRef Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I, et al. The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;268(1):11–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Overby D, Apelgren K, Richardson W, et al. SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(10):2368–86.CrossRef Overby D, Apelgren K, Richardson W, et al. SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(10):2368–86.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference McHugh M. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRef McHugh M. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Differences in the recommendation of laparoscopic clinical practice guidelines according to the recommendation system—Re-evaluation using GRADE
A pilot study
Authors
J. Leung
A. Ng
K. Gurusamy
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Vienna
Keyword
Laparoscopy
Published in
European Surgery / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1682-8631
Electronic ISSN: 1682-4016
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-019-00622-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

European Surgery 2/2020 Go to the issue