Appraisal of the clinical practice guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures; Do we AGREE (II)?

Objective Optimal thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures is crucial in an attempt to lower the risk of venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We aim to: 1) identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations (CPRs) on thromboprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures, and 2) assess the methodological quality and reporting clarity of these guidelines. Methods The study was conducted following the 2020 PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review and has been registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number (CRD42023406988). An electronic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv. The search terms used were ““adults”, “orthopedic surgery”, “orthopedic surgeries”, “orthopedic surgical procedure”, “orthopedic surgical procedures” “english language”, “venous thromboembolism”, in all possible combinations (January 2013 to March 2023). The eligible studies were evaluated by four blind raters, employing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II) analysis tool. Results The literature research resulted in 931 studies. Finally, a total of 16 sets of guidelines were included in the current analysis. There were 8 national and 8 international CPGs. Eight CPGs made specific recommendations for orthopaedic surgery and referred mostly to joints; one guideline focused on pelvi-acetabular trauma, while the rest were more inclusive and non-specific. Four guidelines, one from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), two from the United Kingdom (UK) and one from India were found to have the highest methodological quality and reporting clarity according to the AGREE-II tool. Inter-rater agreement was very good with a mean Cohens Kappa 0.962 (95% CI, 0.895 – 0.986) in the current analysis. So, the reliability of the measurements can be interpreted as good to excellent. Conclusion Optimal thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures is crucial. The available guidelines were found to be mostly of high methodological quality and inter-rater agreement was very good, according to our study.