Introduction Gout and hyperuricaemia are major health issues and relevant guidance documents have been released by a variety of national and international organisations. However, these documents contain inconsistent recommendations with unclear quality profiles. We aim to conduct a systematic appraisal of the clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment for hyperuricaemia and gout, and to summarise recommendations.
Methods We will search PubMed, EMBASE and guideline databases to identify published clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements. We will search Google and Google Scholar for additional potentially eligible documents. The quality of included guidelines and consensus statements will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and be presented as scores. We will also manually extract recommendations for clinical practice from all included documents.
Ethics and dissemination The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
Protocol registration number PROSPERO CRD42016046104.
- Clinical practice guideline
- Systematic review
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors HT and SL conceived this study. QL, JSWK and SL designed the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the searching resource and strategy. QL, JSWK, HC and XS designed the appraisal strategy of each included guideline and consensus. QL, XL and SL drafted the protocol. All authors discussed actively in the protocol of the study.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement This manuscript is a protocol of a systematic review and does not contain original data.
Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. Owing to a scripting error, some of the publisher names in the references were replaced with 'BMJ Publishing Group'. This only affected the full text version, not the PDF. We have since corrected theseerrors and the correct publishers have been inserted into the references.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.