The methodological quality of dengue clinical practice guidelines globally. A systematic review

Clicks: 12
ID: 322606
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #17 of 112 articles by views in qjm : monthly journal of the association of physicians

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the methodological quality of dengue clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available globally. METHODS: This systematic review included CPGs on dengue clinical management (clinical diagnosis, investigation and treatment), and the development process of the guidelines, required to be evidence-based and including an expert review process. An electronic search was performed using Google, Google Scholar and PubMed. The search was last performed in September 2025. No language restriction was imposed. The selection of CPGs and cross-checking of data extracted were performed by two independent reviewers with a third to resolve any discrepancies. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) was used to assess the quality of CPGs by four independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 29 CPGs published from 2009-2025 in 18 countries were included for review. Overall, six CPGs rated as high quality. Among these six CPGs, only three reported the recommendations with GRADE. Four CPGs adapted other CPGs without transparent review process. Majority of the CPGs fail to demonstrate a robust scientific development process. CONCLUSION: Despite the variability in the quality of the CPGs assessed in this review, several high-quality guidelines were identified as suitable for use. In contrast, a number of CPGs were found to rely heavily on adaptations of existing guidelines while lacking sufficient methodological rigour. Therefore, CPGs that adapt recommendations from other sources should still undertake a full and systematic development process consistent with the AGREE II framework.
Reference Key
openalex_W7171317838 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Gary K K Low, Sam Froze Jiee, Leiva Mm, Leticia del Carmen Castillo Signor, Osamudiamen Favour Omosumwen, Selvanaayagam Shanmuganathan, María Lastra Cagigas, Vivian Monzon Gomez, Olaf Horstick, Carlos Alberto Montenegro-Quiñonez
Journal qjm : monthly journal of the association of physicians
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/qjmed/hcag202
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcag202
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.