» Articles » PMID: 38221570

A Systematic Review for the Evidence of Recommendations and Guidelines in Hybrid Nuclear Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.

Methods: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.

Results: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.

Conclusion: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.

Citing Articles

Splenic Embolism in Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review of the Literature with an Emphasis on Radiological and Histopathological Diagnoses.

Moreira G, Feijoo N, Tinoco-da-Silva I, Aguiar C, da Conceicao F, de Castro G Trop Med Infect Dis. 2024; 9(4).

PMID: 38668544 PMC: 11053958. DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed9040083.

References
1.
Vaz Carneiro A . Methodological appraisal of guidelines. The AGREE instrument. Rev Port Cardiol. 2004; 23(3):447-56. View

2.
Ferket B, Genders T, Colkesen E, Visser J, Spronk S, Steyerberg E . Systematic review of guidelines on imaging of asymptomatic coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(15):1591-600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.10.055. View

3.
Shaneyfelt T, Rothwangl J . Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999; 281(20):1900-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.20.1900. View

4.
Qaseem A, Kansagara D, Lin J, Mustafa R, Wilt T, Forciea M . The Development of Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements by the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians: Update of Methods. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(12):863-870. DOI: 10.7326/M18-3290. View

4.
Aghayev A, Steigner M, Azene E, Burns J, Chareonthaitawee P, Desjardins B . ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Noncerebral Vasculitis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021; 18(11S):S380-S393. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.08.005. View