0219/2018 - Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines. Comparação da qualidade metodológica e transparência das guias de prática clínica Brasileiras.
OBJETIVO: Comparar e analisar as diferenças entre as guias de prática clínica (GPCs) do Ministério da Saúde (MS) e as de outras instituições de saúde brasileiras. MÉTODOS: foi realizada uma revisão sistemática das GPCs brasileiras. Foram incluídas GPCs com recomendações para o tratamento farmacológico de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis elencadas (DCNTs). A qualidade metodológica e a transparência das GPC foram avaliadas de forma independente por 2 revisores utilizando o AGREE II. As GPCs foram classificadas como alta, moderada e baixa qualidade (variando de A a C). RESULTADOS: Vinte e seis GPCs foram avaliadas quanto à qualidade. As GPCs do MS foram publicadas mais recentemente, e apresentaram de melhor qualidade do que os outros: 6/6 (100%) foram classificadas como Moderada-A. Exceto pelo domínio clareza da apresentação, as GPCs do MS obtiveram pontuações mais altas em todos os outros domínios. CONCLUSÃO: Embora as GPCs tenham apresentado uma ampla gama de qualidade metodológica e transparência, as GPCs do MS apresentaram melhor consistência no desenvolvimento. Para evitar confusão e melhorar a qualidade do cuidado com os recursos limitados no Brasil e, para evitar viés/conflitos de interesse, GPCs nacionais usados no SUS devem ser desenvolvidos, sobretudo, pela CONITEC em parceria com universidades e autores sem conflitos de interesse.
Palavras-chave:
Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto. Doença Crônica. Atenção Primária à Saúde. Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica. Assistência à Saúde.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the differences between the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. METHODS: A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of the listed 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 (rangingA to C). RESULTS: 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. Except for the clarity of presentation domain, MoH CPGs scored higher in all other domains. CONCLUSION: 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 possible bias/conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should principally be developed by CONITEC with universities and authors that have no conflict of interest.
Keywords:
Practice guidelines. Chronic disease. Primary health care. Technology assessment, biomedical. Delivery of health care.
Comparação da qualidade metodológica e transparência das guias de prática clínica Brasileiras.
Resumo (abstract):
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the differences between the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the Ministry of Health (MoH) and those of other Brazilian health institutions. METHODS: A systematic review of Brazilian CPGs was carried out. CPGs with recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of the listed 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 (rangingA to C). RESULTS: 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. Except for the clarity of presentation domain, MoH CPGs scored higher in all other domains. CONCLUSION: 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 possible bias/conflicts of interest, national CPGs used within SUS should principally be developed by CONITEC with universities and authors that have no conflict of interest.
Palavras-chave (keywords):
Practice guidelines. Chronic disease. Primary health care. Technology assessment, biomedical. Delivery of health care.
Molino, CGRC, Romano-lieber, Nicolina Silvana, Ribeiro, Eliane, Melo, Daniela Oliveira de. Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines.. Cien Saude Colet [periódico na internet] (2018/abr). [Citado em 24/12/2024].
Está disponível em: http://cienciaesaudecoletiva.com.br/artigos/comparison-of-the-methodological-quality-and-transparency-of-brazilian-practice-guidelines/16752?id=16752&id=16752
