Appraisal of quality and analysis of the similarities and differences between osteoarthritis Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations: A systematic review

Objective

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aim to support management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), but recommendations are often conflicting and implementation is poor, contributing to evidence-to-practice gaps. This systematic review investigated the contextual and methodological factors contributing to conflicting recommendations for hip and knee OA.

Method

Our systematic review appraised CPGs for managing hip and knee OA in adults ≥18 years (PROSPERO CRD42021276635). We used AGREE-II and AGREE-REX to assess quality and extracted data on treatment gaps, conflicts, biases, and consensus. Heterogeneity of recommendations was determined using Weighted Fleiss Kappa (K). The relationship between (K) and AGREE-II/AGREE-REX scores was explored.

Results

We identified 25 CPGs across eight countries and four international organisations. The ACR, EULAR, NICE, OARSI and RACGP guidelines scored highest for overall AGREE-II quality (83%). The highest overall AGREE-REX scores were for BMJ Arthroscopy (80%), RACGP (78%) and NICE (76%). CPGs with the least agreement for pharmacological recommendations were ESCEO and NICE (−0.14), ACR (−0.08), and RACGP (−0.01). The highest agreements were between RACGP and NICE (0.53), RACGP and ACR (0.61), and NICE and ACR (0.91). Decreased internal validity determined by low-quality AGREE scores(<60%) in editorial independence were associated with less agreement for pharmacological recommendations.

Conclusion

There were associations between guideline quality and agreement scores. Future guideline development should be informed by robust evidence, editorial independence and methodological rigour to ensure a harmonisation of recommendations. End-users of CPGs must recognise the contextual factors associated with the development of OA CPGs and balance these factors with available evidence.