Quality Evaluation of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Failure
Authors' conclusion
There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines.
Study context
- Population
- Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), January 2011 to August 2023
- Participants
- 14 guidelines
- Outcome
- Methodological quality of the guidelines (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool)
Methodological detailsmethodological quality appraisal, AGREE II appraisal, independent dual screening and extraction
- Methodological quality appraisal
- AGREE II appraisal
- Independent dual screening and extraction
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Methodological quality (AGREE II)
- Only the Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Gastroenterology (2023) guidelines achieved an aggregate quality score >60%, meriting clinical recommendations
- Ample room for enhancement, particularly in stakeholder engagement, rigor and applicability domains
Further pooled results
Common recommendations and supporting evidence (10 adult LF guidelines)
- Controversy in recommendations, absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence, and a preference in evidence selection
Original publication
Quality Evaluation of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Failure. Crit Care Med. Published 4 June 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →