Cargando...
Methodological characteristics of Peruvian clinical practice guidelines, 2018 – 2023: A scoping review
Author(s)
Brañez-Condorena, Ana
Solis-Chimoy, Blanca
National University of San Marcos
Mejia, Jhonatan R.
Universidad Científica del Sur
Chavez-Rimache, Lesly Karem
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola
Fernández-Chinguel, José Ernesto
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
Taype-Rondán, Álvaro Renzo
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola
Date Issued
31 de diciembre de 2025
Type
Article
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Volume
20
Issue
12 December
Series/Report No.
PLoS ONE
Contained in
PLOS ONE
ISSN
1932-6203
Abstract
Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) must be developed through a rigorous and transparent methodology to ensure the appropriateness and reliability of their recommendations. In Peru, little is known regarding how CPGs adhere to established methodological standards. Objective To describe the methodological characteristics of CPGs developed and published in Peru between 2018 and 2023. Methods We conducted a scoping review and searched CPGs on Google, Google Scholar, and relevant local organizational websites. To be included, CPGs had to self-identify as such, have full-text versions available online, provide explicit methodological descriptions, and base their recommendations on systematic reviews, with publication dates between January 2018 and December 2023. We presented the results descriptively and analyzed the methodological differences among CPGs from different organizations using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Out of 312 records assessed, 88 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. We found a declining publication trend over the study period: 39 CPGs were published in 2018–2019, 30 in 2020–2021, and 19 in 2022–2023. Most CPGs (60.2%) were developed by the Peruvian Social Security Health Insurance (EsSalud). Oncology was the most prevalent specialty of the CPGs (20.5%) and most CPGs (96.6%) included disease management. 23.7% of CPGs used ≥ 3 search engines, and 76.3% showed the risk of bias assessment. Although most CPGs indicated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology (94.3%), 30.7% missed Summary of Findings tables, 38.6% did not include Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, and only 5.7% used minimal important difference for at least one question. Additionally, economic analyses were infrequently sought or included. Conclusions This study highlights significant methodological deficiencies in Peruvian CPGs, including inadequate reporting of search strategies, bias assessments, and key GRADE components. Addressing these shortcomings is crucial for enhancing the quality and reliability of CPGs and promoting equitable healthcare delivery in Peru.