Evaluation of pharmacotherapy recommendations in guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease

What is known and objective The aim of this study was to systematically assess drug therapy in the guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease and to provide recommendations for the development of such guidelines. Study design A systematic search was conducted in databases and on websites to identify guidelines for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Qualified guidelines were assessed through the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Evidence from the guidelines was extracted from the guidelines themselves. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM) evidence grading system was used to regrade and assess this evidence. Results A total of 11 guidelines for the medical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis) (2015-2019) were finally included, and after scoring using the AGREE II tool, the median scores in each domain were as follows: ?. scope and purpose (median score=88.9%, range: 76.4%-91.7%), II. stakeholder involvement (median =38.9%, range: 18.1%-61.1%), . rigour of development (median =69.3%, range: 39.6%-77.6%), . clarity and presentation (median =97.2%, range: 91.7%-100%), . applicability (median =45.8%, range: 24%-68.8%) and . editorial independence (median =94.0%, range: 0-100%). Most of the guidelines scored over 60%, which is worthy of clinical recommendation, but different guidelines suggest that there is a great difference in drug therapy, mainly due to various populations, diverse focuses of attention, distinct efficacy of drugs between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, and the preference of guiding developers for select evidence. What is new and conclusion The quality of medical treatment guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease varies considerably. Over the past 5 years, medical treatment has been heterogeneous among different guidelines. Consideration of factors leading to heterogeneity of recommendations for drug treatment, especially preferences for evidence selection, will help upgrade the guidelines.