OBJECTIVES: In Europe, 25% of workers use video display terminals (VDTs). Occupational health surveillance has been considered a key element in the protection of these workers. Nevertheless, it is unclear if guidelines available for this purpose, based on EU standards and available evidence, meet currently accepted quality criteria. The aim of this study was to appraise three sets of European VDT guidelines (UK, France, Spain) in which regulatory and evidence-based approaches for visual health have been formulated and recommendations for practice made. METHODS: Three independent appraisers used an adapted AGREE instrument with seven domains to appraise the guidelines. A modified nominal group technique approach was used in two consecutive phases: first, individual evaluation of the three guidelines simultaneously, and second, a face-to-face meeting of appraisers to discuss scoring. Analysis of ratings obtained in each domain and variability among appraisers was undertaken (correlation and kappa coefficients). RESULTS: All guidelines had low domain scores. The domain evaluated most highly was Scope and purpose, while Applicability was scored minimally. The UK guidelines had the highest overall score, and the Spanish ones had the lowest. The analysis of reliability and differences between scores in each domain showed a high level of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest current guidelines used in these countries need an update. The formulation of evidence-base European guidelines on VDT could help to reduce the significant variation of national guidelines, which may have an impact on practical application.
OBJECTIVES: In Europe, 25% of workers use video display terminals (VDTs). Occupational health surveillance has been considered a key element in the protection of these workers. Nevertheless, it is unclear if guidelines available for this purpose, based on EU standards and available evidence, meet currently accepted quality criteria. The aim of this study was to appraise three sets of European VDT guidelines (UK, France, Spain) in which regulatory and evidence-based approaches for visual health have been formulated and recommendations for practice made. METHODS: Three independent appraisers used an adapted AGREE instrument with seven domains to appraise the guidelines. A modified nominal group technique approach was used in two consecutive phases: first, individual evaluation of the three guidelines simultaneously, and second, a face-to-face meeting of appraisers to discuss scoring. Analysis of ratings obtained in each domain and variability among appraisers was undertaken (correlation and kappa coefficients). RESULTS: All guidelines had low domain scores. The domain evaluated most highly was Scope and purpose, while Applicability was scored minimally. The UK guidelines had the highest overall score, and the Spanish ones had the lowest. The analysis of reliability and differences between scores in each domain showed a high level of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest current guidelines used in these countries need an update. The formulation of evidence-base European guidelines on VDT could help to reduce the significant variation of national guidelines, which may have an impact on practical application.