Evaluación de dos guías de valoración de riesgos laborales en el embarazo

Resumen

Objectives: As a consequence of new legislation in Spain establishing particular conditions for the control of occupational exposures during pregnancy, different Spanish associations have developed guides for professional practice. This paper evaluates the methodological quality and content of the guidelines of the Asociación de Mutuas de Accidentes de Trabajo (AMAT), an association of occupational health insurance companies, and the Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia (SEGO), the Spanish professional society of obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: Formal consensus strategy in two phases: individual assessment and face-to-face meeting. To assess the quality, the AGREE II instrument was used, divided into six general areas (goals and objectives, rigor, participation, clarity, applicability, and independence). Standardized scores were calculated by area (as a percent of maximum score in each area), together with the medians of response to each item. Concordance among the five reviewers was also analyzed. Similarities and differences were also assessed, as was the adequacy of the recommendations in both guides according to the reviewers� own experience and the available scientific literature. Results: Both guides obtained similar overall quality scores (<50%). Applicability showed the lowest scores in both guides (7%). The percentage of agreement between raters was greater than 75%. The experts showed greater heterogeneity regarding the adequacy of the recommendations in the guidelines. Conclusions: Both guides should be modified, mostly to improve their overall quality and recommendations.