Matthew K H Tan1, Rong Luo1, Sarah Onida1, Stefano Maccatrozzo2, Alun H Davies3. 1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK. 2. Istituto Clinico Beato Matteo, Vigevano, Italy. 3. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: a.h.davies@imperial.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the quality of current venous leg ulcer (VLU) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assist healthcare professionals in choosing an accessible high quality CPG to advise their practice, and to identify areas for improvement in future versions of current CPGs. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, online CPG databases, and reference lists of included CPGs was carried out. Full text CPGs published no earlier than 1998 reporting evidence based recommendations on VLU diagnosis and management in English were included. CPGs that were only available if purchased were excluded. Two reviewers identified eligible CPGs, extracted data, and assessed the quality independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Significant scoring discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer. RESULTS: Fourteen eligible CPGs were identified (1999-2016). The majority of CPGs originated from Europe or North America. Overall, there was good inter-reviewer reliability of scores with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.986 (95% confidence interval 0.979-0.991). No single CPG achieved the highest score in all six domains. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed across VLU CPGs; however, consistently, poor performance was noted in domain 5, concerning CPG applicability. CONCLUSION: Four CPGs were considered of adequate quality for clinical use. Consolidation of efforts to drive high quality, comprehensive VLU CPGs is necessary to reduce the number of and heterogeneity seen in currently published guidelines. Elements of methodological quality are lacking and a structured approach with use of checklists and CPG creation tools, such as AGREE II or others, may bolster rigour in future VLU CPGs.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the quality of current venous leg ulcer (VLU) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assist healthcare professionals in choosing an accessible high quality CPG to advise their practice, and to identify areas for improvement in future versions of current CPGs. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, online CPG databases, and reference lists of included CPGs was carried out. Full text CPGs published no earlier than 1998 reporting evidence based recommendations on VLU diagnosis and management in English were included. CPGs that were only available if purchased were excluded. Two reviewers identified eligible CPGs, extracted data, and assessed the quality independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Significant scoring discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer. RESULTS: Fourteen eligible CPGs were identified (1999-2016). The majority of CPGs originated from Europe or North America. Overall, there was good inter-reviewer reliability of scores with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.986 (95% confidence interval 0.979-0.991). No single CPG achieved the highest score in all six domains. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed across VLU CPGs; however, consistently, poor performance was noted in domain 5, concerning CPG applicability. CONCLUSION: Four CPGs were considered of adequate quality for clinical use. Consolidation of efforts to drive high quality, comprehensive VLU CPGs is necessary to reduce the number of and heterogeneity seen in currently published guidelines. Elements of methodological quality are lacking and a structured approach with use of checklists and CPG creation tools, such as AGREE II or others, may bolster rigour in future VLU CPGs.
Authors: Kia Hau Matthew Tan; Safa Salim; Matthew Machin; Aurélien Geroult; Sarah Onida; Tristan Lane; A H Davies Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692