World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines update – VI – A quality appraisal with the AGREE II instrument
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the publication of The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines in 2010, a number of other guidelines, expert opinions, and position papers relating to the management of cow's milk allergy (CMA) have been published. We aimed to systematically review the quality of the guidelines on CMA diagnosis and management in children and/or adults published between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, and Turning Research into Practice databases as well as website guideline repositories were searched from January 2010 until May 2020. Any clinical practice recommendations and/or guidelines focusing on the diagnosis and management of CMA in children and/or adults developed or endorsed by professional scientific societies or organizations were included. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool, a 23-item tool organized within 6 domains and 2 global rating items. RESULTS: We included 12 guidelines; 8 were developed by national and 4 by international organizations. The quality scores for each domain varied: of all domains, the clarity of presentation domain had the highest median score (92%; Q1-Q3 81-100%), whereas rigor of development had the lowest median score (30%; Q1-Q3 15-67%). The median scores (Q1-Q3) for individual domains were as follows: scope and purpose 82% (70-99%), stakeholder involvement 63% (21-79%), rigor of development 30% (15-67%), clarity of presentation 92% (81-100%), applicability 68% (57-75%), and editorial independence 75% (69-100%). The median overall score was 70% (58-89%). Only 1 guideline (from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]) achieved top ratings (100%) in five domains and the overall score. Three guidelines (from the NICE, the British Society for Allergy & Clinical Immunology [BSACI] and WAO) achieved the highest ratings (100%) in at least 3 domains and the overall score. CONCLUSION: The majority of identified guidelines were of good or very good quality. However, the weakest point was the rigor of development domain, mostly due to unclear description of strengths and limitations of the body of evidence and the procedure for updating the guidelines.
