Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric solid organ injury care: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Observed variations in the management of pediatric solid organ injuries (SOIs) may be due to difficulty in finding and integrating recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with heterogeneous methodological approaches. We aimed to systematically review CPG recommendations for pediatric SOIs.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric SOI populations, using Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Web of Science, and websites of clinical organizations. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. We synthesized recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

Results: We identified eight CPGs, including three rated moderate or high quality. Methodological weaknesses included lack of stakeholder involvement beyond surgeons, consideration of applicability (e.g., implementation tools), and clarity around the definition of pediatric populations. Five of the 15 recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs were based on moderate quality evidence or were rated as strong; these reflected nonoperative management and angioembolization for renal injuries and required length of stay for liver and spleen injuries.

Conclusion: We identified 15 recommendations on pediatric SOI management from 3 moderate or high-quality CPGs, but only one third were based on at least moderate-quality evidence or were rated as strong. Our results prompt the following recommendations for future CPG development or updates: (1) include all types of clinicians involved in the care of pediatric SOIs and patient and family representatives in the process, (2) develop clear definitions of the target population, and (3) provide advice and tools to promote implementation. Results also underline the urgent need for more rigorous research to support strong evidence-based recommendations in this population.

Level of evidence: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.