Remarkable differences between three evidence-based guidelines on management of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome

Authors

  • Mark C. J. Aarts MD, PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    • Department of Otolaryngology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Geert J. M. van der Heijden PhD,

    1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    2. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Maroeska M. Rovers PhD,

    1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    2. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Wilko Grolman MD, PhD

    1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    2. Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare available guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) regarding their content, conclusions on the available evidence, and recommendations.

Study Design:

Literature review/systematic review.

Methods

We retrieved guidelines from Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Web sites of several health care improvement centers and with a Google Scholar search. We appraised the quality of selected guidelines according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. For similar clinical questions we compared the conclusions, the attached levels of evidence, and the references used. If differences were found, we checked search strategies, appraisal criteria, and publication date as possible sources for these differences.

Results

We selected the guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of OSAHS of the Scottish Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement in the United States for this comparison. For similar clinical questions these three guidelines showed conflicting conclusions (11%–18%), differences in attached levels of evidence (32%–62%), and remarkable discrepancies in cited studies. A plausible reason for these differences is the citation preference for articles from members of the guidelines workgroup and from their own country. Despite different publication dates, more recent guidelines fail to cite earlier published guidelines.

Conclusions

Despite the generally accepted approach regarding the development of evidence-based guidelines, remarkable differences exist between guidelines from different countries on the same clinical subject. Laryngoscope, 2013

Ancillary