Level of Evidence of Guidelines for Perioperative Management of Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Evaluation Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Tool : Anesthesia & Analgesia

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Review Articles: Systematic Review Article

Level of Evidence of Guidelines for Perioperative Management of Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Evaluation Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Tool

Singh, Mandeep MD, MSc, FRCPC*,†,‡,§; Tian, Chenchen MD*,†; Hyman, Jaime B. MD; Siddiqui, Shahla MD, MSc; Auckley, Dennis MD#; Khanna, Ashish K. MD**,††; Wong, Jean MD*,†,‡; Englesakis, Marina MLIS*; Singh, Kawal Preet MBBS*; Ramachandran, Satya Krishna MD

Author Information
Anesthesia & Analgesia 136(2):p 262-269, February 2023. | DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006320

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common form of sleep-disordered breathing seen in the perioperative setting. It is associated with higher rates of postoperative complications, increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and increased resource utilization. Despite having a high prevalence in the surgical population, up to 60% to 90% of patients with OSA undergoing surgery remain undiagnosed in their perioperative course.1–5

The high prevalence of OSA in the surgical population has incentivized the development of guidelines for risk management and mitigation. Different societies have published several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide anesthesiologists on the management of these patients with diagnosed or suspected OSA. Many guidelines use OSA-screening questionnaires, such as the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, blood Pressure, Body mass index, Age, Neck circumference and Gender) Questionnaire, the Perioperative Sleep Apnea Prediction Score (P-SAP), the Berlin Questionnaire, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) checklist. These have been validated for preanesthetic risk stratification.6–8 Similarly, patients with a diagnosis or high suspicion for OSA should be counseled about the heightened perioperative risk and mitigation strategies that may be implemented to ensure perioperative safety. This can include modifications to preoperative interventions, such as initiation of positive airway pressure therapy and weight loss. Intraoperative techniques may prioritize regional anesthesia over general anesthesia. Finally, postoperative management may include reducing systemic opioid use, postoperative noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and admission to a monitored setting. Despite the overwhelming clinical evidence associating the perioperative risks of patients with OSA, evidence supporting perioperative safety measures is largely lacking. Consequently, clinicians may choose to rely on guidelines published by perioperative societies and expert groups to guide management strategies.

Currently, the quality of recommendations for perioperative management of patients with OSA is unknown, often leaving anesthesiologists the difficult task of making decisions regarding preoperative preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative course with some degree of uncertainty. This study evaluated the quality of CPGs regarding perioperative management of patients with OSA using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.9 A systematic search of the MedlineALL (Ovid) database was conducted from inception to February 26, 2021, for CPGs. The search used controlled vocabulary and text words for terms and synonyms for the component blocks of: “sleep apnea” AND “perioperative” and “guidelines.” The search strategy was designed and performed by an informatics specialist. The full-search strategy is shown in Supplemental Digital Content 1, Table 1, https://links.lww.com/AA/E148.

Selection Criteria

Guidelines were selected according to the following inclusion criteria using a 2-reviewer system: (1) guidelines concerning the perioperative management of patients with OSA undergoing surgical procedures; (2) guidelines developed by multiple authors or medical organizations; and (3) guidelines available in full text in the English language. We excluded unpublished guidelines, consensus opinions, systematic reviews, functional algorithms, editorials, institution protocols, or surgical technique guidelines.

Data Extraction

Data were extracted independently from all eligible articles using a predetermined data collection tool. Panelists were selected by experts from the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine (SASM), which includes the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA), the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), and patient advocacy groups, all of which work to develop evidence-based guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with OSA.10 Panelists had expertise in perioperative management of OSA and consensus guideline development, with training in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, sleep medicine, and clinical epidemiology. Using an online platform (My AGREE PLUS) allows evaluators to complete and record online AGREE II appraisals.11 The AGREE II platform allows evaluators to: (1) complete individual appraisals; (2) contribute to group appraisals; and (3) coordinate a group appraisal. The online appraisal took place between March 3, 2021, and March 18, 2021.

Table 1. - Characteristics of the Identified Guidelines on OSA
Study # Practice guideline Year Society Funding/conflicts of interest Grading system Development method Overall recommendations (7 reviewers)
R RM NR
1 Evaluation and management of obesity hypoventilation syndrome 2019 American Thoracic Society Reported GRADE Evidence-based 6 1 0
2 Preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with OSA 2016 Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine None GRADE Evidence-based 5 2 0
3 Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults 2011 Canadian Thoracic Society Not reported None Consensus-based 5 2 0
4 Intraoperative management of adult patients with OSA 2018 Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Reported GRADE Evidence-based 5 2 0
5 Perioperative care of patients with OSA undergoing upper airway surgery 2019 None Reported GRADE Evidence-based 5 2 0
6 Perioperative OSA management in bariatric surgery 2017 None Reported GRADE Consensus-based 4 2 1
7 Preoperative selection of adult patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery 2012 Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Reported SIGN Evidence-based 3 4 0
8 Perioperative management of patients with OSA 2014 American Society of Anesthesiologists Not reported None Evidence-based 2 4 1
9 Anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in weight loss surgery 2009 None Reported None Consensus-based 1 4 2
10 Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing 2006 Canadian Thoracic Society Reported None Consensus-based 1 2 4
Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; NR, not recommended; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; R, recommended; RM, recommended with modifications; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.

F1
Figure.:
PRISMA reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis flow diagram outlining the search strategy results from initial search to included studies. PRISMA indicates Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Other data variables extracted included publication year, publishing society, target population, time period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative), research questions or objectives, development method of guidelines (consensus-based and evidence-based), funding or conflicts of interest (reported and not reported), and grading of evidence system (eg, Oxford classification and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] framework) used.12

Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument

Quality appraisal of guidelines was evaluated using the AGREE II instrument, a validated assessment tool that appraises the quality of CPGs.13 It includes 23 items across 6 domains: (1) scope and purpose, addressing the overall aim of the guideline; (2) stakeholder involvement, focusing on the incorporation of appropriate stakeholders in development of the guideline; (3) rigor of development, concerning the methodology used to gather and synthesize evidence and formulate recommendations; (4) clarity of presentation, evaluating the language, format, and structure of the guideline; (5) applicability, relating to the barriers and facilitators to implementing the guideline; and (6) editorial independence, concerning the development of the guideline without bias from competing interests. Additionally, there are 2 global rating items of overall assessment, including the rating of overall quality of the guideline and the potential recommendation for use of the guideline in clinical practice. Each item is rated using a Likert scale from 1 (strong disagreement) to 7 (strong agreement). Each domain-scaled score is scored as defined in the AGREE II instrument manual by summing the rating of individual items in each domain and standardizing them using the following formula: (obtained score – minimum possible score)/(maximum possible score – minimum possible score). Appraisal was performed independently by 7 authors to assess the reliability of the assessment. All appraisers completed training on the AGREE II tool before evaluating eligible guidelines.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the overall rating of the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II tool (domain 7). Secondary outcomes included individual ratings of each of the AGREE II domains (domains 1–6).

Statistical Analysis

The median and range scores for each domain were calculated and expressed as a percentage, using the above formula. A sample size of 7 evaluators was determined based on AGREE II instructions and previous studies that have similarly used the AGREE II tool to assess CPGs to achieve sufficient power for the analysis.13–16 Consistency of scores by our 7 evaluators was estimated using a 2-way mixed-effects model for the intraclass coefficient (ICC) analysis, assuming a group of k raters was randomly selected from a population and then used to rate subjects. The following ICCs were assigned to a level of consistency: (1) <0.40, poor agreement; (2) 0.40–0.54, weak agreement; (3) 0.55–0.69, moderate agreement; (4) 0.70–0.84, good agreement; and (5) 0.85–1.0, excellent agreement. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 (IBM Corp).17

RESULTS

Guideline Characteristics

A total of 192 articles were identified in the initial search. After title and abstract screening, 41 full texts were assessed for eligibility. After review of the full texts, 10 articles met inclusion criteria for this review (Figure).18–27 Guideline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Nine of the 10 guidelines were published by groups from North America, and one was published by a group from the Netherlands. Six of the 10 guidelines used an evidence-based method, with 5 guidelines using the GRADE framework (Table 1).

AGREE II Domain Scores

Domain scoring from the AGREE II instrument is shown in Table 2. The median and range of each domain are described below:

Table 2. - AGREE II Domain Scores of the Identified Guidelines on OSA
Study # Practice guideline Scope and purpose (%) Stakeholder involvement (%) Rigor of development (%) Clarity of presentation (%) Applicability (%) Editorial independence (%) Overall assessment (%)
1 Evaluation and management of obesity hypoventilation syndrome 92 82 90 88 73 83 85
2 Preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with OSA 95 60 71 87 55 67 73
3 Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults 90 63 82 83 54 67 73
4 Intraoperative management of adult patients with OSA 94 50 71 82 47 75 70
5 Perioperative care of patients with OSA undergoing upper airway surgery 90 60 67 76 45 67 68
6 Perioperative OSA management in bariatric Surgery 78 54 65 72 48 59 63
7 Preoperative selection of adult patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery 86 34 67 70 40 68 61
8 Perioperative management of patients with OSA 76 45 47 57 29 58 52
9 Anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in weight loss surgery 67 35 42 60 40 63 51
10 Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing 60 30 40 69 20 19 40
Median (range) 88 (60–95) 52 (30–82) 67 (40–90) 74 (57–88) 46 (20–73) 67 (19–83) 65 (40–85)
Scores represent the median and range of each domain as calculated using: (obtained score – minimum possible score)/(maximum possible score – minimum possible score).
Abbreviations: AGREE II, Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.

(1) Scope and purpose, 88% (60%–95%). The median score on this domain was the highest among all domains. All CPGs scored >60%, which indicates that the overall objective, clinical questions, and patient populations were specifically described (Supplemental Digital Content 2, Table 2, https://links.lww.com/AA/E149).

(2) Stakeholder involvement, 52% (30%–82%). This domain received the second lowest median score. Two of the guidelines scored >60%.22,23 The American Thoracic Society (ATS) guideline, which included a patient in the guideline panel to provide perspective on their values and preferences, received the highest score of 82%.22 This CPG also involved a methodologist and scholars to participate in the guideline discussion.

(3) Rigor of development, 67% (40%–90%). Most guidelines used systematic methods to search for evidence, although many lacked a procedure for updating the guideline or did not update guidelines in consideration of emerging evidence.

(4) Clarity of presentation, 74% (57%–88%). Most guidelines performed well in this domain, with clear presentation of recommendations (Supplemental Digital Content 3, Table 3, https://links.lww.com/AA/E150).

(5) Applicability, 46% (20%–73%). This domain scored the lowest, with a lack of description of facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation.

(6) Editorial independence, 67% (19%–83%). This domain had the widest range among guidelines. While most stated that relevant funding bodies and competing interests had minimal influence on the content of the guideline, some CPGs did not readily offer this information. Graphical representation of the domains is shown in the Figure. Five of 10 guidelines received an overall approval of recommended by at least 4 of the 7 evaluators (Table 1).

Table 3. - IRR Agreement for 10 CPGs on OSA Among 7 Raters
CPG ICC 95% confidence interval P value
Lower Upper
Evaluation and management of obesity hypoventilation syndrome 0.99 0.97 0.99 <.001
Preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with OSA 0.99 0.96 0.99 <.001
Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults 0.99 0.97 0.99 <.001
Intraoperative management of adult patients with OSA 0.98 0.95 0.99 <.001
Perioperative care of patients with OSA undergoing upper airway surgery 0.98 0.95 0.99 <.001
Perioperative OSA management in bariatric surgery 0.98 0.92 0.99 <.001
Preoperative selection of adult patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery 0.98 0.93 0.99 <.001
Perioperative management of patients with OSA 0.94 0.82 0.99 <.001
Anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in weight loss surgery 0.93 0.80 0.99 <.001
Diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing 0.96 0.87 0.99 <.001
Abbreviations: CPG, clinical practice guideline; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; IRR, interrater reliability; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.

The practice guideline with the highest overall performance on the AGREE II instrument was published by the ATS.22 This CPG achieved an overall score of 85% across all 6 domains and was recommended by 6 of the 7 evaluators. Three other CPGs achieved an overall score of at least 70%, and were recommended by 5 of the 7 evaluators.23–25

Interrater Reliability

The ICCs of evaluations performed by the 7 evaluators were >0.9 for all included studies (Table 3), which indicated that consistency of the scores among the evaluators was high.

DISCUSSION

This critical appraisal showed that several CPGs regarding perioperative management of patients with OSA had poor methodological quality, with half of the guidelines not recommended as published. The main items of concern included the domains of stakeholder involvement and applicability, which were lacking alone or in combination in many of the published guidelines.

Clinicians often rely on CPGs to guide decisions regarding patient care. Evidence shows that guidelines with rigorous development processes do improve clinical outcomes.28 Particularly in anesthesiology, in which robust randomized clinical trials are often not feasible to guide “best clinical practice,” the availability and value of high-quality guidelines are most important.29 Consequently, guidelines developed with insufficient rigor can lead to misinformed patient care.

We found that stakeholder involvement regarding the experience and expectations of the target population in development of the guidelines was lacking, a limitation also found in the appraisals of other perioperative guidelines.30–32 Consultation with patients helps ensure that values, preferences, and topics of priority have been considered. There has been an increased shift toward a patient-centered approach in the perioperative care setting that aims to take into account the holistic needs and goals of the patient as a means to improve satisfaction, functional status, and well-being.33,34 Patient and public involvement should be incorporated as a key component of clinical practice guideline development to identify patient-relevant topics (eg, “Am I allowed use the same CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) mask in the hospital?” “How will the doctors and nurses understand my CPAP machine settings?” and “How will I be able to clean my CPAP machine and mask in the hospital?”), and outcome selection (eg, important elements of patient counseling in the preoperative and postoperative setting). This domain is particularly important to guide patients on care after hospital discharge, when there is ample scope to engage patients in the creation of shared care pathways. Improvements in this domain can make clinical guidelines more accessible to a broader audience.35 Meaningful stakeholder perspectives should be incorporated by future groups developing perioperative guidelines for patients with OSA.

Another domain that scored particularly low was applicability, which concerns facilitators and barriers to implementation of guideline objectives. Although guidelines were developed with rigor, guidelines may still be prone to poor uptake in a clinical setting and have limited improvement on outcomes. Certain facilitators may include providing advice or tools to aid implementation (eg, availability of conducting sleep studies and obtaining reports and addressing CPAP noncompliance), potential resource implications (eg, cost-benefit analysis and application in poorly resourced centers), and the feasibility of monitoring criteria (eg, conducting pilot studies to monitor).36

This study has its limitations. The AGREE II instrument, although a validated tool, requires subjective assessment from evaluators. To control for this, we ensured that all evaluators underwent robust training on using the AGREE II instrument with reference to the user manual during the evaluation period. Each guideline was evaluated by 7 distinct evaluators to reduce the impact of subjectivity. The consistency between evaluators was also demonstrated with strong interrater reliabilities. Our methods only included guidelines that were published in full-text online and in English; therefore, any guidelines that were published in the “gray” literature or were unavailable online or in a different language were omitted. Most guidelines were published by North American societies, although most of the societies involved international authors in their production to provide broader applicability.

Our critical appraisal of CPGs in the perioperative management of OSA found that half of the guidelines are of moderate quality and could be recommended as published. However, the involvement of patient stakeholders and implementation of guidelines into clinical practice were lacking among most of the guidelines. Ongoing collaborative efforts across specialities should focus on guideline development with higher standards utilizing all available quality evidence, wider stakeholder involvement, including a patient perspective, and effective implementation of evidenced-based recommendations to perioperative management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the SASM (Satya Krishna Ramachandran, Mandeep Singh, Bhargavi Gali, Christine Won, Dennis Auckley, Jean Wong, Chenchen Tian, Ameya Pappu, and Basavaraj Ankalagi), SAMBA (Girish Joshi, Jaime Hyman, Mahesh Nagappa, Marina Englesakis, Meltem Yilmaz, Niraja Rajan, and Richard Urman), and SOCCA (Adam Evans, Ashish Khanna, Elizabeth Cotter, Piyush Mathur, Shahla Siddiqui, Sheila Myatra, and David Burley) collaborative guidelines group for their support on this work.

DISCLOSURES

Name: Mandeep Singh, MD, MSc.

Contribution: This author helped with conceptualization; methodology; writing the original draft; and reviewing and editing.

Name: Chenchen Tian, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with methodology; data management, validation, and analysis; writing the original draft; and reviewing and editing.

Name: Jaime B. Hyman, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with writing, reviewing, and editing.

Name: Shahla Siddiqui, MD, MSc.

Contribution: This author helped with writing, reviewing, and editing.

Name: Dennis Auckley, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with writing, reviewing, and editing.

Name: Ashish K. Khanna, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with writing, reviewing, and editing.

Name: Jean Wong, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with writing, reviewing, and editing.

Name: Marina Englesakis, MSc.

Contribution: This author helped with conceptualization; methodology; data management, validation, and analysis; and writing, reviewing and editing.

Name: Kanwalpreet Singh, MSc.

Contribution: This author helped with methodology; and data management, validation, and analysis.

Name: Satya Krishna Ramachandran, MD.

Contribution: This author helped with supervision, conceptualization, and methodology; data management, validation, and analysis; and writing, reviewing, and editing.

This manuscript was handled by: Toby N. Weingarten, MD.

GLOSSARY

AGREE II =
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II
ATS
= American Thoracic Society
CPGs =
clinical practice guidelines
GRADE
= Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation;
ICCs =
intraclass correlation coefficients;
NR
not recommended
OSA =
obstructive sleep apnea
PRISMA =
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
P-SAP =
Perioperative Sleep Apnea Prediction Score
R
recommended
RM
recommended with modifications
SAMBA =
Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia
SASM =
Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine
SIGN
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
SOCCA =
Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists
STOP-Bang =
Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, blood Pressure, Body mass index, Age, Neck circumference and Gender

REFERENCES

1. Singh M, Liao P, Kobah S, Wijeysundera DN, Shapiro C, Chung F. Proportion of surgical patients with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:629–636.
2. Devaraj U, Rajagopala S, Kumar A, Ramachandran P, Devereaux PJ, D’Souza GA. Undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea and postoperative outcomes: a prospective observational study. Respiration. 2017;94:18–25.
3. Memtsoudis S, Liu SS, Ma Y, et al. Perioperative pulmonary outcomes in patients with sleep apnea after noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:113–121.
4. Kaw R, Pasupuleti V, Walker E, Ramaswamy A, Foldvary-Schafer N. Postoperative complications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Chest. 2012;141:436–441.
5. Kaw R, Chung F, Pasupuleti V, Mehta J, Gay PC, Hernandez AV. Meta-analysis of the association between obstructive sleep apnoea and postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:897–906.
6. Nagappa M, Liao P, Wong J, et al. Validation of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire as a screening tool for obstructive sleep apnea among different populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0143697.
7. Ramachandran SK, Kheterpal S, Consens F, et al. Derivation and validation of a simple perioperative sleep apnea prediction score. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:1007–1015.
8. Chiu H-Y, Chen P-Y, Chuang L-P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Berlin questionnaire, STOP-BANG, STOP, and Epworth sleepiness scale in detecting obstructive sleep apnea: a bivariate meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2017;36:57–70.
9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
10. Ramachandran SK. Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine: looking back at a decade, looking forward to the next. Anesth Analg. 2021;132:1202–1204.
11. Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al.; on behalf of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182:E839–E842.
12. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–394.
13. Dans AL, Dans LF. Appraising a tool for guideline appraisal (the AGREE II instrument). J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1281–1282.
14. O’Donnell TFJ, Allison GM, Melikian R, Iafrati MD. A systematic review of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for lymphedema, as assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. J Vasc surgery Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8:685–692.
15. Li X, Yu X, Xie Y, et al. Critical appraisal of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:1405.
16. Hatakeyama Y, Seto K, Amin R, et al. The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:788.
17. IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. IBM Corp.
18. Joshi GP, Ankichetty SP, Gan TJ, Chung F. Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia consensus statement on preoperative selection of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea scheduled for ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:1060–1068.
19. Fleetham J, Ayas N, Bradley D, et al.; CTS Sleep Disordered Breathing Committee. Canadian Thoracic Society guidelines: diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered breathing in adults. Can Respir J. 2006;13:387–392.
20. Ravesloot MJL, de Raaff CAL, van de Beek MJ, et al. Perioperative care of patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing upper airway surgery: a review and consensus recommendations. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145:751–760.
21. Schumann R, Jones SB, Cooper B, et al. Update on best practice recommendations for anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in weight loss surgery, 2004‐2007. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17:889–894.
22. Mokhlesi B, Masa JF, Brozek JL, et al. Evaluation and management of obesity hypoventilation syndrome.An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200:e6–e24.
23. Fleetham J, Ayas N, Bradley D, et al.; Canadian Thoracic Society Sleep Disordered Breathing Committee. Canadian Thoracic Society 2011 guideline update: diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered breathing. Can Respir J. 2011;18:25–47.
24. Chung F, Memtsoudis SG, Ramachandran SK, et al. Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guidelines on Preoperative Screening and Assessment of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:452–473.
25. Memtsoudis SG, Cozowicz C, Nagappa M, et al. Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Anesth Analg. 2018;127:967–987.
26. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management. Practice guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:268–286.
27. de Raaff CAL, Gorter-Stam MAW, de Vries N, et al. Perioperative management of obstructive sleep apnea in bariatric surgery: a consensus guideline. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:1095–1109.
28. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993;342:1317–1322.
29. Goerke K, Parke M, Horn J, et al. Are results from randomized trials in anesthesiology robust or fragile? An analysis using the fragility index. JBI Evid Implement. 2020;18:116–124. https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/Fulltext/2020/03000/Are_results_from_randomized_trials_in.12.aspx.
30. Barajas-Nava L, Solà I, Delgado-Noguera M, et al. Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines in perioperative care: a systematic appraisal. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e50.
31. Song X, Wang J, Gao Y, et al. Critical appraisal and systematic review of guidelines for perioperative diabetes management: 2011‐2017. Endocrine. 2019;63:204–212.
32. Wang X, Tang B, Liu Y, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for management of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with noncardiac surgery: a critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022;47:652–661.
33. Moonesinghe SR, Jackson AIR, Boney O, et al.; Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC) Group. Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: patient-centred outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123:664–670.
34. Roberts GP, Levy N, Lobo DN. Patient-centric goal-oriented perioperative care. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126:559–564.
35. Elwyn G, Quinlan C, Mulley A, Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, Guyatt G. Trustworthy guidelines‐excellent; customized care tools‐even better. BMC Med. 2015;13:199.
36. Donnellan C, Sweetman S, Shelley E. Implementing clinical guidelines in stroke: a qualitative study of perceived facilitators and barriers. Health Policy. 2013;11:234–244.

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society