June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
An appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for diabetic retinopathy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Connie Wu
    Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI
  • Annie Wu
    Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI
  • Benjamin Young
    Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI
  • Dominic J Wu
    Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI
  • Curtis Margo
    Ophthalmology, Pathology, Cell Biology, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL
  • Paul B Greenberg
    Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Connie Wu, None; Annie Wu, None; Benjamin Young, None; Dominic Wu, None; Curtis Margo, None; Paul Greenberg, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 140. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Connie Wu, Annie Wu, Benjamin Young, Dominic J Wu, Curtis Margo, Paul B Greenberg; An appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for diabetic retinopathy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):140.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS), and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) for the management of diabetic retinopathy in adults.

Methods: Four evaluators independently appraised the three CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument, which covers six domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigor of Development, Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, and Editorial Independence). This includes an Overall Assessment summarizing guideline methodological rigor across all domains, using a seven-point scale where perfect adherence equals a score of seven.

Results: Scores ranged from 35% to 78% for the AAO guideline; 60% to 92% for the COS guideline; and 35% to 82% for the RCO guideline. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the reliability of mean scores for the AAO, COS, and RCO were 0.78, 0.78, and 0.79; 95% CIs [0.60-0.89], [0.56-0.90], and [0.56-0.91], respectively. The strongest domains were Scope and Purpose and Clarity of Presentation (COS). The weakest were Stakeholder Involvement (AAO), Rigor of Development (AAO, RCO), Applicability, and Editorial Independence (RCO).

Conclusions: Diabetic retinopathy practice guidelines can be improved by targeting stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×