L·OVE identified more relevant systematic reviews than guidelines for the management of difficult airway in adults

ID: 

P3-001

Session: 

Poster session 3

Date: 

Thursday 24 October 2019 - 12:30 to 14:00

All authors in correct order:

Perelli L1, Bardach A1, Cohen Arazi H1, Ciapponi A1
1 Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Argentina
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Agustín Ciapponi

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: failures in identifying systematic reviews (SRs) could negatively impact the 'description of the condition' section in systematic reviews (SRs), the discussion of the agreement or disagreement with other SRs, and when considering the SRs’ list of references, the thoroughness of the search strategy. In the elaboration of clinical practice guidelines (CPG), the omission of important SRs may lead to an inadequate decision-making process.

Living OVerview of the Evidence (L·OVE) is a highly sensitivity platform that brings together all systematic reviews relevant to a specific topic, by means of automated algorithms.

Objectives: to compare the search results of SRs from L·OVE with the list of references of the 11 CPG identified about management of difficult airway in adults.

Methods: we carried out a search on difficult airway in L·OVE in January 2019 and compared it with the SRs included in an overview of guidelines about management of difficult airway in adults, according to the search date. We used the following strategy to search Epistemonikos: (((airway OR ventilat* OR hypox* OR oxygen* OR intubat* OR extubat*) AND difficu*) OR tracheotom* OR cricothyroidotom* OR (laryngeal AND mask*) OR laryngoscop*)

Results: we identified 582 SRs and we included 82. Most of them (68) addressed aspects related to the management of the difficult airway scenario, while the rest addressed aspects related to risk and diagnostic factors. We did not find any SRs about the prevalence or prognosis of the entity. We found that in all cases the guidelines included a substantially lower number of SRs than those found in the L·OVE search (see Table 1).

During the Colloquium we will present the additional relevant primary research identified by L·OVE compared with CPGs.

Conclusions: the use of more sensitive tools in the search for evidence from SRs could broaden the relevant information for the development of CPGs and thus improve the decision-making process.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: none, since it was a methodological study about published systematic reviews.

Attachments: