Rigour of development of clinical practice guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder: Systematic review

• Published in: Journal of affective disorders 2015-03, Vol.174, p.45-50
• Main Authors: Castellani, Arianna, Girlanda, Francesca, Barbui, Corrado
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antimanic Agents - therapeutic use; Bipolar disorder; Bipolar Disorder - drug therapy; Clinical practice guidelines; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards; Psychiatry; Quality
• ISSN: 0165-0327; 1573-2517
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.032

Abstract Background There is an increasing concern about the quality of clinical practice guidelines. Because no information is available on the rigour of development of clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder, we carried out a systematic review of those focusing on its pharmacological treatment. Methods We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINHAL for guidelines published from 2003 to 2014. The quality of each guideline was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Results Fourteen guidelines were appraised. The overall quality of included guidelines varied considerably, both within and across AGREE II domains. Overall, six guidelines were rated as “recommended”, two “recommended with modifications”, and six were not recommended according to AGREE II ratings. The mean score for rigour of development was 46.8% of the maximum possible score, with no guidelines scoring the maximum score in this domain. Guidelines with lower editorial independence scores also had lower rigour of development scores, whereas those with higher-quality domain scores scored high in both domains. Limitations As current appraisal focused on guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder, it will be important to critically assess the rigour of development of other guidelines for bipolar and other psychiatric disorders. Conclusions Health care providers, policy makers, physicians and patients alike need to be aware of the variability in guideline quality and identify the high-quality guidelines that meet their needs.