A2 Vertaisarvioitu katsausartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging
Tekijät: Besson, Florent L.; Treglia, Giorgio; Bucerius, Jan; Anagnostopoulos, Constantinos; Buechel, Ronny R.; Dweck, Marc R.; Erba, Paula A.; Gaemperli, Oliver; Gimelli, Alessia; Gheysens, Olivier; Glaudemans, Andor W. J. M.; Habib, Gilbert; Hyafil, Fabian; Lubberink, Mark; Rischpler, Christopher; Saraste, Antti; Slart, Riemer H. J. A.
Kustantaja: Springer
Julkaisuvuosi: 2024
Lehti: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Vuosikerta: 51
Numero: 8
Aloitussivu: 2247
Lopetussivu: 2259
ISSN: 1619-7070
eISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-024-06597-x
Julkaisun avoimuus kirjaamishetkellä: Avoimesti saatavilla
Julkaisukanavan avoimuus : Osittain avoin julkaisukanava
Verkko-osoite: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-024-06597-x
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/386854268
Rinnakkaistallenteen lisenssi: CC BY
Rinnakkaistallennetun julkaisun versio: Kustantajan versio
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.
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |