METHOD: A systematic search was conducted employing PubMed, Cochrane and ScienceDirect from inception until May 2021. The quality of four CPGs were evaluated by two appraisers independently using the AGREE II checklist.

RESULTS: Four international CPGs that fulfilled the criteria were included in this review; all scored over 50% according to the AGREE II tool. Applying a modified categorisation standard, CPGs were considered as either 'recommended' or 'recommended with modifications'.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search for existing guidelines on TDI was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, National Institute for Health Care Excellence, BMJ Best Practice, Trip database, Guideline International Network, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, World Health Organisation, Web of Science and 'Ministry of Health worldwide' databases. Four appraisers independently appraised the included CPGs. The AGREE II tool was applied to assess the methodological quality, while AGREE REX assessed the quality of recommendations of the included guidelines.

RESULTS: Of the 7736 titles screened, three guidelines, namely the International Association of Dental Traumatology Guidelines (IADT), and the Italian and Malaysian guidelines, were included for the final analysis. These guidelines were published between 2019 and 2020. The AGREE II analysis demonstrated scores above 80% for the IADT and Italian guidelines for the scope and purpose domain. Overall, the Malaysian guidelines achieved the highest score for all domains. The AGREE REX analysis indicated variability in implementation across the nine items, with five that scored above the midpoint of 4.0 on the response scale. Both the Italian and the IADT guidelines had a similar score for the values and preference domains (36.36%).

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS: We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS: The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

METHODS: CPGs were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane-Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse and Web sites of relevant societies/organizations producing and/or endorsing CPGs.

RESULTS: The definition of AGE varies among the 15 CPGs identified. The parameters most frequently recommended to assess dehydration are skin turgor and sunken eyes (11/15, 73.3%), general appearance (11/15, 66.6%), capillary refill time, and mucous membranes appearance (9/15, 60%). Oral rehydration solution is universally recognized as first-line treatment. The majority of CPGs recommend hypo-osmolar (Na 45-60 mmol/L, 11/15, 66.6 %) or low-osmolality (Na 75 mmol/L, 9/15, 60%) solutions. In children who fail oral rehydration, most CPGs suggest intravenous rehydration (66.6%). However, nasogastric tube insertion for fluid administration is preferred according by 5/15 CPGs (33.3%). Changes in diet and withdrawal of food are discouraged by all CPGs, and early refeeding is strongly recommended in 13 of 15 (86.7%). Zinc is recommended as an adjunct to ORS by 10 of 15 (66.6%) CPGs, most of them from low-income countries. Probiotics are considered by 9 of 15 (60%) CPGs, 5 from high-income countries. Antiemetics are not recommended in 9 of 15 (60%) CPGs. Routine use of antibiotics is discouraged.

METHOD: A literature search for acne CPGs published between January 2008 and September 2013 was conducted. Two reviewers independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODological quality was evaluated by ranking in AGREE II domains and the highest number of items scoring above the neutral threshold score.

RESULTS: Four CPGs fulfilled the selection criteria, and the highest ranked were the European and Malaysian. Highest scores achieved by the former were for scope/purpose, stakeholder involvement, and rigor of development and by the latter were for scope/purpose, clarity of presentation, and applicability. Applicability was the lowest scoring of all domains for all CPGs.