Objective To systematically review the methodological quality of guidelines concerning pharmacological intervention for complicated hypertension. Methods The databases and relevant guideline websites such as MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, WangFang Data, National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Clinical Practice Guideline Network (CPGN) were searched to collect the clinical guidelines concerning pharmacological intervention for complicated hypertension. By adopting the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), the methodological quality of guidelines was assessed. Meanwhile the similarities, differences and features of drug recommendation in guidelines for different areas and diseases were analyzed by means of analogy comparison.Results A total of 21 guidelines concerning pharmacological intervention for complicated hypertension were included. The number of guidelines concerning hypertension complicated with coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, diabetes mellitus (DM) and kidney disease (KD) was 5, 5, 7 and 4, respectively. The publication year ranged from 2000 to 2011. According to the AGREE instrument, 19 and 2 guidelines were graded as Level B and C, respectively. The overall guidelines got low average scores in the domain of “Stakeholder involvement” and “Applicability”, including 9 evidence-based guidelines. There were totally 4 and 3 classes in terms of the level of evidence and recommendation, respectively; moreover, 10 and 6 expression forms were adopted in the level of evidence and recommendation, respectively. For hypertension with angina pectoris, -blocker (BB) and calcium channel blocker (CCB) were recommended unanimously. For hypertension with myocardial infarction, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and BB were recommended unanimously. For hypertension with heart failure, ACEI, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) and BB were recommended unanimously. For hypertension with later stage of post-stroke, 76.47% guidelines recommended diuretic (D) and ACEI. For hypertension with acute stroke, recommendations were mainly based on the guidelines developed by American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA). For hypertension with DM or KD, the guidelines basically recommended that systolic/diastolic pressure should be controlled in the range of less than 130/80 mmHg. For hypertension with DM, ACEI were recommended unanimously, followed by D and CCB. For hypertension with KD, ACEI/ARB was recommended, while 3 of the 5 guidelines recommending CCB were from Asian. Conclusion The overall methodological qualities of complicated hypertension guidelines differs, with high proportion of evidence-based guidelines. The classification criteria of the levels of evidence and recommendation are still suboptimal. For hypertension with CHD, DM, KD and later stage of stroke, results from high quality clinical evidence are consistent, and the recommendations are basically unanimous, with no regional and quality difference. But in some clinical researches beyond reaching a consensus at present, the recommendation discrepancy exists, and there still remains controversy for hypertension with acute stroke.
Objective To systematically review simple hypertension guidelines through methods as follows: (a) compare differences and similarities of the recommended drugs; (b) analyze differences of the recommended frequencies in different regions and quality levels; and (c) explore the recommended evidence basis, so as to better understand relevant guidelines. Methods Uncomplicated hypertension guidelines concerning pharmacological interventions were identified (terminated by March 2012) in Ovid, EMbase, Chinese Biomedical Disc (CBM) and WangFang database as well as guideline websites including NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse), GIN(Guidelines International Network), NICE(National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) and CPGN (Clinical Practice Guideline Net, guidelines concerning pharmacological intervention in simple hypertension were included. A total of 6 domains (involving 23 items) in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) were applied to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. A comparative study was performed regarding the recommendations in guidelines from different regions as well as of different methodological qualities. Results A total of 27 guidelines concerning pharmacological intervention in simple hypertension were included, involving 6 continents, 13 counties, 3 regions and 3 international organizations. Publication dates ranged from 2003 to 2012. According to the AGREE instrument, 4, 17 and 6 guidelines were graded as Level A, B and C, respectively. There were only 2 domains, “Scope and Purpose” and “Clarity of Presentations”, getting high average scores (more than 60%) among all guidelines. The average scores of guidelines in different domains of AGREE varied with regions. There were 8 evidence-based guidelines which got higher average scores in each domain of AGREE than those of non-evidence-based guidelines. Guidelines varied with the standards of classifying ideal, normal, high normal blood pressure and hypertension. Diuretics were the first agent recommended by all guidelines, and the other recommendations were correlated with age and race. There was a tendency to recommend diuretics as basic drugs in two-drug combination therapy in North America, while calcium channel blockers (CCBs) were the most recommended agents in Asian guidelines. Conclusion The overall methodological quality of simple hypertension guidelines is suboptimal in different countries or regions. The 6 domains involving 23 items in AGREE vary with scores, while the scores of evidence-based guidelines are higher than those of non-evidence-based guidelines. There are differences in the standards of classifying ideal, normal, high normal blood pressure and hypertension. The first-line drug recommendations differ in regions and relate to age and race. Two-drug combination therapy regimens also vary with region.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of guidelines for pharmacological intervention of migraine in adults, to compare and analyze the differences in first-line drug recommendations in different regions and quality levels, so as to explore the evidence of drug recommendations, and provide a basis for clinical decision-making.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data databases, Up To Date, as well as the related books, Yimaitong, Guideline Central, Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched to collect pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults from inception to January 12th, 2020. The methodological quality of the guidelines was evaluated by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ).ResultsA total of 25 guidelines were included (including 22 evidence-based guidelines), covering 10 countries on 4 continents and World Health Organization (WHO) with a time span of 1997 to 2019. According to AGREE Ⅱ, 5 were A-level guidelines, 18 were B-level guidelines, and 2 were C-level guidelines. Scope and purpose, rigour of development, clarity of presentations and editorial independence obtained high average scores (more than 60%) among all 25 guidelines. The average scores of guidelines in different domains of AGREE Ⅱ varied with regions and countries. Triptans and NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended as first-line drugs for the acute management; beta-blockers and antiepileptic drugs were recommended for the first-line prevention drugs of migraine in adults. There were 2 guidelines that recommended complementary treatments, one recommended traditional Chinese medicine and another recommended herbal butterbur.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults is suboptimal among different regions or countries. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. The consistency of first-line drug recommendations is strong, but there are still regional differences. The therapeutic effect of traditional Chinese medicine requires further verification.