Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of psoriasis: systematic review, critical appraisal, and quality assessment with the AGREE II instrument

Background: Psoriasis is considered one of the stubborn lifelong dermatologic diseases, making the patients seized in their social cage. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert opinions ensure that patients with psoriasis render the most recent and developed care. This systematic review assessed and compared the most recently approved international CPGs with the AGREE II instrument. Methods: After we identified our research question, we searched the bibliographic international databases to identify and screen for relevant and eligible guidelines that address the topic of interest. Four independent reviewers (Senior Expert Dermatologist in Psoriasis) have critically appraised the selected guidelines via the AGREE II instrument. We conducted inter-rater analysis and percent agreement among raters and calculation of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) ‘Kappa’. Results: Out of 33 articles for CPGs, only Four eligible CPGs fulfill the inclusion criteria. Selected CPGs were critically appraised; first from the American College of Rheumatology that is also National Psoriasis Foundation (ACR/NPF-2018), second from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2017) for Psoriasis: Assessment and Management, third from the Saudi practical guidelines on the biologic treatment for Psoriasis (Saudi CPGs, 2015), and lastly from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD/NPF-2019) Management and Treatment of Psoriasis with Awareness and Attention to Comorbidities. The complete assessments (OA) of two CPGs (AAD/NPF and NICE) scored greater than 80%; ‘six domains’ of AGREE II had greater score that is congruent with results; (1) scope and motive, (2) shareholder involvement, (3) rigor of growth, (4) clarity of speech, (5) validity, and (6) journalistic independence domains. Domain (3) scored (84, 71, and 90%), domain (5) (51%, 47, and 90%), domain (6) (70, 52, and 90%) for (Saudi CPGs, AAD/NPF, and NICE), respectively. Generally, the clinical recommendations were significantly better for NICE CPGs. Conclusions: Four evidence-based ‘CPGs’ introduced a high-quality methodological analysis. NICE indicated the greatest quality followed by Saudi CPGs and AAD/NPF and all four CPGs were suggested for practice.