June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Eyes on guidelines: evaluating the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Rajendra Gyawali
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Better Vision Foundation Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
  • Melinda Toomey
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Fiona Stapleton
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Barbara Zangerl
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Lisa Dillon
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
  • Kam Chun Ho
    Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Lisa Keay
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
  • Sally Marwan Alkhawajah
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    King Saud University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia
  • Gerald Liew
    Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
  • Isabelle Jalbert
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Rajendra Gyawali, None; Melinda Toomey, None; Fiona Stapleton, None; Barbara Zangerl, None; Lisa Dillon, None; Kam Chun Ho, None; Lisa Keay, None; Sally Alkhawajah, None; Gerald Liew, None; Isabelle Jalbert, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3522. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Rajendra Gyawali, Melinda Toomey, Fiona Stapleton, Barbara Zangerl, Lisa Dillon, Kam Chun Ho, Lisa Keay, Sally Marwan Alkhawajah, Gerald Liew, Isabelle Jalbert; Eyes on guidelines: evaluating the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3522.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of vision impairment globally. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to assist practitioners in providing evidence-based care to improve vision outcomes. However, the methodological rigor of these guidelines remains largely unknown. This study aimed to systematically review the quality of existing diabetic eye care guidelines.

Methods : A systematic search of guidelines for comprehensive clinical eye care of adult patients with diabetes was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Web of Science and websites of relevant guideline developers and professional societies. Four reviewers independently rated the quality of the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Aggregate scores (%) for six domains and overall quality assessment were calculated. A ‘good quality’ guideline was defined as the one with ≥60% score for ‘rigour of development’ and in at least two other domains.

Results : Eighteen guidelines met inclusion criteria, of which 13 were evidence-based guidelines (involved systematic search and grading of evidence). In general, guidelines scored high in ‘clarity of presentation’ (Median (interquartile range (IQR)): 86.6% (76.7% to 94.4%), and ‘scope and purpose’ (73.6% (54.2% to 80.6%)) and low in ‘applicability’ (28.6% (18.0% to 37.8%)) and ‘stakeholder involvement’ (48.6% (29.2% to 71.5%)). The median scores for ‘rigour of development’ and ‘editorial independence’ were 60.2% (30.9% to 78.1%) and 67.7% (24.0% to 83.3%), respectively. The median overall score (out of 7) of all guidelines was 5.1 (IQR: 3.7 to 5.8). The evidence-based guidelines scored significantly higher in overall assessment and all domains except for ‘clarity of presentation’ compared to expert-consensus guidelines. Half (n=9) of the guidelines (all-evidence-based) were of ‘good quality’.

Conclusions : A wide variation in methodological quality exists among diabetic eyecare guidelines, with nine guidelines demonstrating ‘good quality’. Future iterations of guidelines could improve by appropriately engaging stakeholders, following a rigorous development process, including support for application in clinical practice and ensuring editorial transparency.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

AGREE-II domain scores (primary y-axis) and average overall scores (secondary y-axis for the line graph) for diabetic eye disease guidelines

AGREE-II domain scores (primary y-axis) and average overall scores (secondary y-axis for the line graph) for diabetic eye disease guidelines

×
×

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.

×