Quality and reporting standards appraisal of guidelines and consensuses on ketogenic diet therapy in children with refractory epilepsy
10.3760/cma.j.cn115682-20220726-03626
- VernacularTitle:难治性癫痫患儿生酮饮食指南及专家共识的质量和报告规范评价
- Author:
Junhan YANG
1
;
Jiaxin FANG
;
Jingjing LI
;
Xiao LI
;
Liqun GUO
;
Zhiyu LONG
;
Wenqing CHEN
;
Dahua ZHANG
Author Information
1. 北京中医药大学护理学院，北京 102488
- Keywords:
Epilepsy;
Ketogenic diet;
Children;
Quality evaluation;
Reporting standards
- From:
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
2023;29(21):2839-2846
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the quality and reporting standards of the ketogenic diet guidelines and consensuses in children with refractory epilepsy at home and abroad.Methods:A systematic search was conducted using the English and Chinese keywords for screening relevant guidelines and expert consensus on the Guidelines International Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Center for Evidence-Based Health Care in Australia, DynaMed Evidence-Based Medicine Database, American Academy of Neurology, American Epilepsy Society, International League Against Epilepsy, Child Neurology Society, European Paediatric Neurology Society, International Ketogenic Diet Research Group, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biology Medicine disc, etc. The search period was from establishment of databases to August 13, 2021. The quality of the guidelines was evaluated using the The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and EvaluationⅡ, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in healthcare was used to evaluate the reporting standards of guidelines. The JBI Center for Evidence-based Health Care Quality Evaluation tool was used to evaluate the quality of expert consensuses, and the National Institutes of Health Reporting Standards was used to evaluate the reporting standards of expert consensuses.Results:A total of 1 864 literatures were searched initially. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and reading the literature content, 13 literatures were selected, and after manual search, 1 literature was supplemented. Finally, a total of 14 literatures were obtained, including 7 guidelines and 7 expert consensuses. The quality evaluation results showed that 2 guidelines were grade A, 2 guidelines were grade B and 3 guidelines were grade C. 5 expert consensuses were rated "Yes" in the six items of quality evaluation. The results of the evaluation of reporting norms showed that the seven expert consensus reports were of poor quality; the higher the methodological quality rating of the guidelines, the better their reporting quality.Conclusions:The overall quality of the 14 guidelines and expert consensuses included is high, and attention should be paid to research quality in terms of application and participants. The reporting standards need to be further improved, and in the future, researchers can pay more attention to the reporting standards in the process of formulating guidelines and expert consensus, achieving a more rigorous research process and better applying evidence to clinical practice.
