Connie M Wu1, Annie M Wu1, Benjamin K Young1, Dominic Wu1, Allison Chen1, Curtis E Margo2, Paul B Greenberg1. 1. Section of Ophthalmology, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island, USA Division of Ophthalmology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA Division of Ophthalmology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 2. Departments of Ophthalmology, Pathology and Cell Biology, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) for the management of cataract in adults. STUDY DESIGN: An evaluation of the AAO, COS and RCO CPGs using a reliable and validated instrument. METHODS: Four evaluators independently appraised the three CPGs using the AGREE II Instrument, which covers six domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigour of Development, Clarity of Presentation, Applicability and Editorial Independence). The AGREE II includes an Overall Assessment summarising guideline methodological rigour across all domains, using a 7-point scale where perfect adherence equals a score of 7. RESULTS: Scores ranged from 36% to 75% for the AAO guideline; 45% to 94% for the COS guideline and 23% to 85% for the RCO guideline. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the reliability of mean scores for the AAO, COS, and RCO were 0.78, 0.74 and 0.80; 95% CIs (0.60 to 0.90), (0.45 to 0.88) and (0.53 to 0.91), respectively. The strongest domains were Scope and Purpose (COS, RCO), Clarity of Presentation (COS, RCO) and Editorial Independence (AAO, COS). The weakest were Stakeholder Involvement (AAO), Applicability (AAO, COS) and Editorial Independence (RCO). CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery practice guidelines can be improved by targeting stakeholder involvement, applicability and editorial independence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
PURPOSE: This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) for the management of cataract in adults. STUDY DESIGN: An evaluation of the AAO, COS and RCO CPGs using a reliable and validated instrument. METHODS: Four evaluators independently appraised the three CPGs using the AGREE II Instrument, which covers six domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigour of Development, Clarity of Presentation, Applicability and Editorial Independence). The AGREE II includes an Overall Assessment summarising guideline methodological rigour across all domains, using a 7-point scale where perfect adherence equals a score of 7. RESULTS: Scores ranged from 36% to 75% for the AAO guideline; 45% to 94% for the COS guideline and 23% to 85% for the RCO guideline. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the reliability of mean scores for the AAO, COS, and RCO were 0.78, 0.74 and 0.80; 95% CIs (0.60 to 0.90), (0.45 to 0.88) and (0.53 to 0.91), respectively. The strongest domains were Scope and Purpose (COS, RCO), Clarity of Presentation (COS, RCO) and Editorial Independence (AAO, COS). The weakest were Stakeholder Involvement (AAO), Applicability (AAO, COS) and Editorial Independence (RCO). CONCLUSIONS:Cataract surgery practice guidelines can be improved by targeting stakeholder involvement, applicability and editorial independence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lens and zonules; Medical Education; Treatment Surgery; Vision
Authors: Andrea J Darzi; Jason W Busse; Mark R Phillips; Rishi P Singh; Frank G Holz; Lehana Thabane; Mohit Bhandari; Varun Chaudhary Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Annie M Wu; Connie M Wu; Benjamin K Young; Dominic J Wu; Curtis E Margo; Paul B Greenberg Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 1.909