Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb 18:16:12.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0150-5.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Yunkun Deng  1   2 , Lei Luo  3 , Yuhuai Hu  4 , Kaiyun Fang  5 , Jin Liu  6
Affiliations

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Yunkun Deng et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: The management of neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging despite it being the recent focus of extensive research. A number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of NP have been published worldwide over the past 2 decades. This study aimed to assess the quality of these CPGs.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of published CPGs for the management of NP. Three reviewers independently assessed the quality of the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument, and recommendations of CPGs were also appraised.

Results: A total of 16 CPGs were included. Thirteen CPGs were developed using an evidence-based approach, and the remaining CPGs were produced by consensus panels. None of CPGs obtained a score greater than 50% in all six AGREE II instrument domains mainly owing to poor performance in the "Applicability" domain. The highest score of the CPGs was achieved in "Clarity and Presentation" domain, followed by "Scope and Purpose" and "Editorial Independence" domains, and the lowest scores were found the in "Applicability" domain. The majority of the CPG recommendations on the management of patients with NP were relatively consistent, especially regarding the recommendation of stepwise treatment with medication.

Conclusions: Greater efforts are needed not only to improve the quality of development and presentation of the CPGs, but also to provide more efficacy evidence for the management of patients with NP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines: Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington: National Academies Press; 2011. - PubMed
    1. Sabharwal S, Patel NK, Gauher S, Holloway I, Athanasiou T. High methodologic quality but poor applicability: assessment of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1982–8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3530-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Horvath AR, Nagy E, Watine J. Critical appraisal of guidelines. In: Price CP, Christenson RH, editors. Evidence-based laboratory medicine: principles, practice, outcomes. 2. Washington: AACC press; 2007. pp. 295–319.
    1. Ward JE, Grieco V. Why we need guidelines for guidelines: a study of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia. Med J Aust. 1996;165:474–6. - PubMed
    1. Kis E, Szegesdi I, Dobos E, Nagy E, Boda K, Kemény L, et al. Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for adaptation in burn injury. Burns. 2010;36(5):606–15. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2009.08.017. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms