TY - JOUR T1 - Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal JF - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine JO - BMJ EBM DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111866 SP - bmjebm-2021-111866 AU - Omar Dewidar AU - Tamara Lotfi AU - Miranda Langendam AU - Elena Parmelli AU - Zuleika Saz Parkinson AU - Karla Solo AU - Derek K Chu AU - Joseph L Mathew AU - Elie A Akl AU - Romina Brignardello-Petersen AU - Reem A Mustafa AU - Lorenzo Moja AU - Alfonso Iorio AU - Yuan Chi AU - Carlos Canelo-Aybar AU - Tamara Kredo AU - Justine Karpusheff AU - Alexis F Turgeon AU - Pablo Alonso-Coello AU - Wojtek Wiercioch AU - Annette Gerritsen AU - Miloslav Klugar AU - María Ximena Rojas AU - Peter Tugwell AU - Vivian Andrea Welch AU - Kevin Pottie AU - Zachary Munn AU - Robby Nieuwlaat AU - Nathan Ford AU - Adrienne Stevens AU - Joanne Khabsa AU - Zil Nasir AU - Grigorios I Leontiadis AU - Joerg J Meerpohl AU - Thomas Piggott AU - Amir Qaseem AU - Micayla Matthews AU - Holger J Schünemann A2 - , Y1 - 2022/04/14 UR - http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/24/bmjebm-2021-111866.abstract N2 - Objectives To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines.Design and setting Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic.Main outcome measures We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.Results 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines’ overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling.Conclusions Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. All relevant data included. ER -