Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines | Zendy

Jiaxing Xie | Zendy; Zhufeng Wang | Zendy; Jingyi Liang | Zendy; Huimin Lin | Zendy; Zhaowei Yang | Zendy; Yingzhi Wang | Zendy; Hanwen Liang | Zendy; Hongkai Wu | Zendy; Ruchong Chen | Zendy; Younger Ou | Zendy; Fengyan Wang | Zendy; Yuan Wang | Zendy; Yan Wang | Zendy; Weizhan Luo | Zendy; Jianheng Zhang | Zendy; Naijian Li | Zendy; Zhengtu Li | Zendy; Mei Jiang | Zendy; Shiyue Li | Zendy; Jing Li | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines

Author(s) -

Jiaxing Xie,

Zhufeng Wang,

Jingyi Liang,

Huimin Lin,

Zhaowei Yang,

Yingzhi Wang,

Hanwen Liang,

Hongkai Wu,

Ruchong Chen,

Younger Ou,

Fengyan Wang,

Yuan Wang,

Yan Wang,

Weizhan Luo,

Jianheng Zhang,

Naijian Li,

Zhengtu Li,

Mei Jiang,

Shiyue Li,

Jing Li

Publication year - 2021

Publication title -

open forum infectious diseases

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 1.546

H-Index - 35

ISSN - 2328-8957

DOI - 10.1093/ofid/ofab376

Subject(s) - medicine , guideline , covid-19 , specialty , medline , critical appraisal , quality of evidence , evidence based medicine , cochrane library , alternative medicine , intensive care medicine , family medicine , meta analysis , disease , pathology , infectious disease (medical specialty) , outbreak , political science , law

Background Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Results A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as “recommended” for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management. Conclusions The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research