Difficult airway management: An analysis of systematic review evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines
Authors' conclusion
SRs cited in DAM CPGs demonstrate inconsistent quality, reflecting a need for stricter adherence to reporting and methodological standards.
Study context
- Population
- Systematic reviews (SRs) cited in difficult airway management clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published 2015–2021SRs from 14 CPGs
- Participants
- 63 participants
- Comparison
- Cochrane vs non-Cochrane SRs
- Cochranen = 3
- Outcome
- Reporting clarity (PRISMA) and methodological rigor (AMSTAR-2) of SRs
Methodological detailsmethodological quality assessment of systematic reviews cited in clinical practice guidelines, PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 assessment, PubMed search, CPGs 2015–2021
- Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews cited in clinical practice guidelines
- PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 assessment
- PubMed search, CPGs 2015–2021
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 completion scores of the 20 SRs directly informing recommendations
Mean PRISMA completion score
73.4%
Mean AMSTAR-2 completion score
49.3%
Further findings
AMSTAR-2 score, Cochrane vs non-Cochrane SRs
- Cochrane SRs scored higher on AMSTAR-2 than non-Cochrane SRs
- Only three Cochrane SRs included
Original publication
Difficult airway management: An analysis of systematic review evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 1 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →