Characteristics and quality of clinical practice guidelines for depression in adults: A scoping review
- Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka,
- Sergio Goicochea-Lugo,
- ,
- Alvaro Taype-Rondan(corresponding author)
- Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,
- Independent Researcher,
- ,
- Instituto Peruano de Orientación Psicológica,
- Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola
Open access
Publication Information
Output type
Original language
EnglishArticle number
76Journal (Volume, Issue Number)
BMC Psychiatry (Volume 19, Issue 1)Publication milestones
- Published - 20/02/2019
Publication status
Publication IDs
- Scopus: 85061989708
- PubMed: 30786870
Abstract
Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) should follow an adequate methodology using an evidence-based approach in order to provide reliable recommendations. However, little is known regarding the quality of CPGs for Depression, which precludes its adequate use by stakeholders and mental health professionals. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to describe the characteristics and quality of CPGs for Depression in adults. Methods: We searched CPGs for Depression in adults in eighteen databases. We included those that were published in English or Spanish between January 2014 and May 2018 and were based on systematic reviews of the evidence. Two independent authors extracted the characteristics, type and number of recommendations, and quality (using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II [AGREE-II]) of each included CPG. Results: We included eleven CPGs, of which 9/11 did not include the participation of patients in the development of the CPG, 4/11 CPGs had a score ≥ 70% in the overall evaluation of AGREE-II, and 3/11 CPGs had a score ≥ 70% in its third domain (rigor of development). In addition, only 5/11 CPGs shared their search strategy, while only 4/11 listed the selected studies they used to reach recommendations, and 7/11 CPGs did not clearly state which methodology they used to translate evidence into a recommendation. Conclusions: Most of evaluated CPGs did not take into account the patient's viewpoints, achieved a low score in the rigor of development domain, and did not clearly state the process used to reach the recommendations. Stakeholders, CPCGs developers, and CPGs users should take this into account when choosing CPGs, and interpreting and putting into practice their issued recommendations.
Access to documents
Publication metrics
Metrics
PlumX, opens in new tab
Sustainable Development Goals
- SDG 3 Good Health and Well
