Methodologic quality of guidelines for training or competence processes for basic point-of-care echocardiography in critical care : a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: The formulation of expert opinion guidelines has several sources of bias that may adversely affect their quality. To minimize bias, guideline creators must use rigorous methodology. There has been no appraisal of the methodologic quality of basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) training/education guidelines. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the methodologic quality of expert guidelines/recommendations on BCCE training? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The review was performed by a multidisciplinary team including intensive care specialists, a hospital scientist, a trainee, a nurse sonographer, and a public health expert. Four databases (PubMed, OVID-Embase, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched on July 31, 2020, to identify guidelines on BCCE training/education. Every guideline was assessed subjectively for the degree of detail of the recommendations and assessed objectively by using the AGREE-II critical appraisal tool for clinical practice guidelines to generate a scaled domain score. A score ≥ 75% in every domain was the cut off for guidelines to be used without modifications. RESULTS: From 4,288 abstracts screened, 24 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Very few guidelines made clear recommendations regarding introductory courses: physics (n = 6 [25%]), instrumentation (n = 5 [20.8%]), image acquisition theory (n = 6 [25%]), course curriculum (n = 5 [[20.8%]), pre-course/post-course tests (n = 1 [4.2%]), minimum course duration (n = 6 [25%]), or trainer qualifications (n = 5 [20.8%]). Very few provided clear recommendations for longitudinal competence programs: clinically indicated scans (n = 8 [33.3%]), logbook (n = 14 [58.3%]), image storage (n = 9 [37.5%]), formative assessment (n = 6 [25%]), minimum scan numbers (n = 14 [58.3%]), image acquisition competence (n = 3 [12.5%]), image interpretation competence (n = 2 [8.3%]), and credentialing/certification (n = 3 [12.5%]). Five guidelines (20.8%) attained a scaled overall AGREE-II score ≥ 75%. One guideline (4.2%) attained scores ≥ 75% in every domain. INTERPRETATION: The methodologic appraisal of BCCE-training guidelines showed widespread deficiencies in guideline formulation processes. The impact of these deficiencies on the validity of the recommendations requires further evaluation in longitudinal studies