Review of clinical practice guidelines for postpartum hemorrhage according to AGREE II

Background: Clinical practice guidelines for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are available worldwide, but no review has assessed the quality of these guidelines. Poor-quality guidelines for PPH may lead clinicians to follow incorrect approaches. Objectives: High-quality guidelines for PPH are important in guiding the clinical diagnosis and treatment of PPH and decreasing maternal mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of clinical guidelines for PPH.Methods: We collected studies from different countries through a literature search including PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, the Cochrane library, websites of health institutions from multiple countries, and search sites, according to the criterion of clinical guidelines for treatment of PPH published between inception and October 2022. Four independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Agreement among reviewers of the guidelines was measured with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The number of recommendations, strength of recommendations, and level of evidence were determined.Results: Seven sets of PPH guidelines published from 2007 to 2022 were identified. An overall high agreement among reviewers in each domain was observed (ICC 0.74 to 0.95). The median scores and ranges for each AGREE II domain were as follows: (i) scope and purpose (median = 86.51%, range: 61.11%- 94.44%); (ii) stakeholder involvement (median = 73.02%, range: 52.78%-90.28%); (iii) rigor of development (median = 76.49%, range: 66.15%-97.92%); (iv) clarity and presentation (median = 88.49%, range: 68.06%-10 0.0 0%); (v) applicability (median = 73.36%, range: 53.13%-93.75%); and (vi) editorial independence (median = 84.52%, range: 60.42%-95.83%). Three sets of PPH guidelines scored high in all domains and were classified as recommended for clinical practice. The other guidelines were classified as recommended with modifications. Conclusion: The methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines for PPH included in this review was generally good, but the strength of the recommendations and the quality of the evidence varied, thus potentially leading to confusion among clinicians applying the guidelines. An urgent need exists for rigorous studies to close important evidence gaps to support the development of guidelines for PPH. & COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.