Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232019001003947 |
Resumo: | Abstract This study aims to compare the differences between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of non-communicable disease (NCDs) were included. CPG methodological quality and transparency was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the AGREE II. CPGs were rated as high, moderate, and low quality (ranging from A to C). Twenty-six CPGs were assessed for quality. MoH CPGs were published more recently, and were of better quality than the others: 6/6 (100%) were rated as Moderate-A. Although CPGs presented a wide range of methodological quality and transparency, MoH CPGs presented better consistency in the preparation method. To avoid confusion and to improve the quality of care within finite resources in Brazil, and to avoid potential bias, conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should be developed by Conitec with partners who have no conflict of interest. |
id |
ABRASCO-2_aaec4a83dc322d93e240842efaef65eb |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1413-81232019001003947 |
network_acronym_str |
ABRASCO-2 |
network_name_str |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelinesPractice guidelinesChronic diseasePrimary health careTechnology assessment biomedicalDelivery of health careAbstract This study aims to compare the differences between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of non-communicable disease (NCDs) were included. CPG methodological quality and transparency was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the AGREE II. CPGs were rated as high, moderate, and low quality (ranging from A to C). Twenty-six CPGs were assessed for quality. MoH CPGs were published more recently, and were of better quality than the others: 6/6 (100%) were rated as Moderate-A. Although CPGs presented a wide range of methodological quality and transparency, MoH CPGs presented better consistency in the preparation method. To avoid confusion and to improve the quality of care within finite resources in Brazil, and to avoid potential bias, conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should be developed by Conitec with partners who have no conflict of interest.ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva2019-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232019001003947Ciência & Saúde Coletiva v.24 n.10 2019reponame:Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online)instname:Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO)instacron:ABRASCO10.1590/1413-812320182410.24352017info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMolino,Caroline de Godoi Rezende CostaRomano-Lieber,Nicolina SilvanaRibeiro,ElianeMelo,Daniela Oliveira deeng2019-09-20T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1413-81232019001003947Revistahttp://www.cienciaesaudecoletiva.com.brhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||cienciasaudecoletiva@fiocruz.br1678-45611413-8123opendoar:2019-09-20T00:00Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
title |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines Molino,Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Practice guidelines Chronic disease Primary health care Technology assessment biomedical Delivery of health care |
title_short |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
title_full |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
title_sort |
Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines |
author |
Molino,Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa |
author_facet |
Molino,Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Romano-Lieber,Nicolina Silvana Ribeiro,Eliane Melo,Daniela Oliveira de |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Romano-Lieber,Nicolina Silvana Ribeiro,Eliane Melo,Daniela Oliveira de |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Molino,Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Romano-Lieber,Nicolina Silvana Ribeiro,Eliane Melo,Daniela Oliveira de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Practice guidelines Chronic disease Primary health care Technology assessment biomedical Delivery of health care |
topic |
Practice guidelines Chronic disease Primary health care Technology assessment biomedical Delivery of health care |
description |
Abstract This study aims to compare the differences between clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of non-communicable disease (NCDs) were included. CPG methodological quality and transparency was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the AGREE II. CPGs were rated as high, moderate, and low quality (ranging from A to C). Twenty-six CPGs were assessed for quality. MoH CPGs were published more recently, and were of better quality than the others: 6/6 (100%) were rated as Moderate-A. Although CPGs presented a wide range of methodological quality and transparency, MoH CPGs presented better consistency in the preparation method. To avoid confusion and to improve the quality of care within finite resources in Brazil, and to avoid potential bias, conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should be developed by Conitec with partners who have no conflict of interest. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-10-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232019001003947 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232019001003947 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1413-812320182410.24352017 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva v.24 n.10 2019 reponame:Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) instname:Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO) instacron:ABRASCO |
instname_str |
Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO) |
instacron_str |
ABRASCO |
institution |
ABRASCO |
reponame_str |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) |
collection |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (Online) - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||cienciasaudecoletiva@fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1754213044477493248 |