In:
BMJ Open, BMJ, Vol. 9, No. 9 ( 2019-09), p. e030299-
Abstract:
Stress urinary incontinence is a major health problem, and several clinical guidelines have been formulated and released regarding this in different countries. However, the recommendations in these guidelines formulated by different organisations and countries are inconsistent. This review aims to conduct a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Methods and analysis We will conduct a comprehensive search in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, three Chinese databases and six guideline databases. The databases will be searched from January 2003, and the comprehensive search will be done again to include all the qualified guidelines before making conclusions. The quality of clinical practice guidelines will be assessed by three appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument, and this will be scored. The recommendation available in the guidance will also be summarised in different domains including the diagnosis standard, recommended examination and questionnaire for assessment, conservative treatment and surgical treatment. Ethics and dissemination This review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The results will help inform the health practitioners about the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018115743.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
2044-6055
,
2044-6055
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030299
Language:
English
Publisher:
BMJ
Publication Date:
2019
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2599832-8
