Methodological Quality Assessment with the AGREE II Scale and a Comparison of European and American Guidelines for the Treatment of Lyme Borreliosis: A Systematic Review.
AGREE II
Lyme borreliosis
guidelines
treatment
Journal
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-0817
Titre abrégé: Pathogens
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101596317
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2021
31 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
16
05
2021
revised:
26
07
2021
accepted:
28
07
2021
entrez:
28
8
2021
pubmed:
29
8
2021
medline:
29
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most European and American countries recently updated their guidelines on Lyme borreliosis (LB). The aim of this study was to provide a comparative overview of existing guidelines on the treatment of LB in Europe and America and to assess the methodological quality of their elaboration. A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the national databases of scientific societies from 2014 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Twelve guidelines were included. The scores for the AGREE II domains (median ± IQR) were: overall assessment 100 ± 22, scope and purpose 85 ± 46, stakeholder involvement 88 ± 48, rigour of development 67 ± 35, clarity of presentation 81 ± 36, applicability 73 ± 52 and editorial independence 79% ± 54%. Cohen's weighted kappa showed a high agreement (K = 0.90, 95%CI 0.84-0.96). Guidelines were quite homogeneous regarding the recommended molecules (mostly doxycycline in the first intention and ceftriaxone in the second intention), their duration (10 to 28 days), and their dosage. The differences were due to the lack of well-conducted comparative trials. The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) guidelines were the only ones to suggest longer antibiotics based on an expert consensus. European and American guidelines for the treatment of LB were quite homogeneous but based on moderate- to low-evidence studies. Well-conducted comparative trials are needed to assess the best molecules, the optimal duration and the most effective doses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Most European and American countries recently updated their guidelines on Lyme borreliosis (LB). The aim of this study was to provide a comparative overview of existing guidelines on the treatment of LB in Europe and America and to assess the methodological quality of their elaboration.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the national databases of scientific societies from 2014 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve guidelines were included. The scores for the AGREE II domains (median ± IQR) were: overall assessment 100 ± 22, scope and purpose 85 ± 46, stakeholder involvement 88 ± 48, rigour of development 67 ± 35, clarity of presentation 81 ± 36, applicability 73 ± 52 and editorial independence 79% ± 54%. Cohen's weighted kappa showed a high agreement (K = 0.90, 95%CI 0.84-0.96). Guidelines were quite homogeneous regarding the recommended molecules (mostly doxycycline in the first intention and ceftriaxone in the second intention), their duration (10 to 28 days), and their dosage. The differences were due to the lack of well-conducted comparative trials. The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) guidelines were the only ones to suggest longer antibiotics based on an expert consensus.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
European and American guidelines for the treatment of LB were quite homogeneous but based on moderate- to low-evidence studies. Well-conducted comparative trials are needed to assess the best molecules, the optimal duration and the most effective doses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34451436
pii: pathogens10080972
doi: 10.3390/pathogens10080972
pmc: PMC8399315
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Przegl Epidemiol. 2015;69(2):309-16, 421-8
pubmed: 26233093
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Nov 9;115(45):751-756
pubmed: 30573008
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Aug;26(8):571-81
pubmed: 17587070
Acta Neurol Scand. 2002 Nov;106(5):253-7
pubmed: 12371917
J Infus Nurs. 2012 Mar-Apr;35(2):84-91
pubmed: 22382792
Lancet. 1988 May 28;1(8596):1191-4
pubmed: 2897008
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 31;337(5):289-94
pubmed: 9233865
Arch Neurol. 1989 Nov;46(11):1190-4
pubmed: 2684107
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Apr;41(4):1791-3
pubmed: 12682190
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014 Sep;12(9):1103-35
pubmed: 25077519
Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A. 1986 Dec;263(1-2):229-36
pubmed: 3577482
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Dec 5;19(1):478
pubmed: 31805878
J Rheumatol. 2010 May;37(5):1049-55
pubmed: 20360182
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 May 19;10:241
pubmed: 32509603
Pediatrics. 2002 Jun;109(6):1173-7
pubmed: 12042561
Neurology. 2003 Jun 24;60(12):1916-22
pubmed: 12821733
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Jan;17(1):69-79
pubmed: 20132258
Neurology. 2003 Jun 24;60(12):1923-30
pubmed: 12821734
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 08;12:CD006978
pubmed: 27931077
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010 Mar;1(1):30-4
pubmed: 21771509
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013 Mar;41(3):288-91
pubmed: 23312603
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Apr;74(4):685-92
pubmed: 26781226
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
Ann Intern Med. 2003 May 6;138(9):697-704
pubmed: 12729423
Neurology. 1994 Jul;44(7):1203-7
pubmed: 8035916
Ann Intern Med. 1996 May 1;124(9):785-91
pubmed: 8610947
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Dec;24(12):1290-1296
pubmed: 29505880
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2005 Jun;117(11-12):393-7
pubmed: 16053194
Arthritis Rheum. 1994 Jun;37(6):878-88
pubmed: 8003060
Clin Dermatol. 1993 Jul-Sep;11(3):329-30
pubmed: 8221513
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Mar 25;16:140
pubmed: 27013465
Infection. 1996 Jan-Feb;24(1):85-7
pubmed: 8852478
Infection. 1996 Jan-Feb;24(1):98-102
pubmed: 8852482
Neurology. 2021 Feb 9;96(6):262-273
pubmed: 33257476
Am J Med. 1992 Apr;92(4):396-403
pubmed: 1313637
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2012 Sep;3(4):257-8
pubmed: 22906496
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017 Nov 10;66(22):1-12
pubmed: 29120995
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988;539:324-45
pubmed: 3056202
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 May;40(5):1104-7
pubmed: 8723448
J Neurol. 1989 Dec;236(8):464-9
pubmed: 2614491
Med Mal Infect. 2019 Aug;49(5):318-334
pubmed: 31097370
Swiss Med Wkly. 2016 Dec 05;146:w14353
pubmed: 27922168
Joint Bone Spine. 2004 Jan;71(1):39-43
pubmed: 14769519
N Engl J Med. 2001 Jul 12;345(2):85-92
pubmed: 11450676
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Apr 26;72(8):1323-1331
pubmed: 32133487
JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Sep 1;154(9):1050-1056
pubmed: 30073319
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005 Jun;25(6):474-8
pubmed: 15871918
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jul;33(7):1078-80
pubmed: 2782858
N Engl J Med. 1985 Apr 4;312(14):869-74
pubmed: 3883177
Infection. 1993 Mar-Apr;21(2):83-8
pubmed: 8387966
Neurology. 2008 Mar 25;70(13):992-1003
pubmed: 17928580
BMC Neurol. 2015 Nov 25;15:242
pubmed: 26607686
Scand J Infect Dis. 2005;37(6-7):449-54
pubmed: 16012005
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1209-20
pubmed: 27028911
Med Mal Infect. 2019 Aug;49(5):335-346
pubmed: 31155367
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Dec 15;2:16090
pubmed: 27976670
Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2008;188:22-8
pubmed: 18439217
Ger Med Sci. 2017 Sep 05;15:Doc14
pubmed: 28943834
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Aug 15;117(4):273-80
pubmed: 1637021
Rheumatol Int. 2014 Jul;34(7):987-94
pubmed: 24390634
Med Mal Infect. 2019 Mar;49(2):121-132
pubmed: 30528068
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Aug;7(8):690-5
pubmed: 18567539
Infection. 2000 May-Jun;28(3):153-6
pubmed: 10879639
Am J Med. 2010 Jan;123(1):79-86
pubmed: 20102996