Author
Listed:
- Ana Brañez-Condorena
- Blanca Solis-Chimoy
- Jhonatan R Mejia
- Lesly Chávez-Rimache
- David R Soriano-Moreno
- Jose Ernesto Fernández-Chinguel
- Alvaro Taype-Rondan
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) must be developed through a rigorous and transparent methodology to ensure the appropriateness and reliability of their recommendations. In Peru, little is known regarding how CPGs adhere to established methodological standards. Objective: To describe the methodological characteristics of CPGs developed and published in Peru between 2018 and 2023. Methods: We conducted a scoping review and searched CPGs on Google, Google Scholar, and relevant local organizational websites. To be included, CPGs had to self-identify as such, have full-text versions available online, provide explicit methodological descriptions, and base their recommendations on systematic reviews, with publication dates between January 2018 and December 2023. We presented the results descriptively and analyzed the methodological differences among CPGs from different organizations using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Out of 312 records assessed, 88 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. We found a declining publication trend over the study period: 39 CPGs were published in 2018–2019, 30 in 2020–2021, and 19 in 2022–2023. Most CPGs (60.2%) were developed by the Peruvian Social Security Health Insurance (EsSalud). Oncology was the most prevalent specialty of the CPGs (20.5%) and most CPGs (96.6%) included disease management. 23.7% of CPGs used ≥ 3 search engines, and 76.3% showed the risk of bias assessment. Although most CPGs indicated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology (94.3%), 30.7% missed Summary of Findings tables, 38.6% did not include Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, and only 5.7% used minimal important difference for at least one question. Additionally, economic analyses were infrequently sought or included. Conclusions: This study highlights significant methodological deficiencies in Peruvian CPGs, including inadequate reporting of search strategies, bias assessments, and key GRADE components. Addressing these shortcomings is crucial for enhancing the quality and reliability of CPGs and promoting equitable healthcare delivery in Peru.
Suggested Citation
Ana Brañez-Condorena & Blanca Solis-Chimoy & Jhonatan R Mejia & Lesly Chávez-Rimache & David R Soriano-Moreno & Jose Ernesto Fernández-Chinguel & Alvaro Taype-Rondan, 2025.
"Methodological characteristics of Peruvian clinical practice guidelines, 2018 – 2023: A scoping review,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-14, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0339861
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339861
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- repec:plo:pone00:0166367 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.