A systematic review assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines in chronic venous disease

Abstract

ObjectiveOur aim was to assess the methodologic quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which inform the diagnosis and management of chronic venous disease (CVD), using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. MethodsA systematic review was performed through the Medline and Embase databases to identify CPGs relevant to CVD. The included articles were evidence-based CPGs available in English and reported in the past 20 years. Consensus documents, expert opinions, and studies providing guidance for diagnosis or treatment alone were excluded. Four independent reviewers assessed the CPGs using the AGREE II tool across six domains. Overall quality scaled scores were calculated for each guideline, and the interrater reliability was measured using an intraclass correlation coefficient. SPSS, version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for statistical analysis. ResultsSix CPGs reported from 2004 to 2018 were identified; all were of European and North American origin. The interrater reliability when scoring each CPG was high, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of >0.8 (P ≤ .002) for all six CPGs. One CPG had an average score of 95.83% across all domains, qualifying as a high quality CPG. The remaining five CPGs had scores ranging from 29% to 71%. The CPGs generally performed poorly in outlining stakeholder involvement and evaluating the applicability of the guideline to clinical practice. ConclusionsScores from the AGREE II tool were reproducible when different users evaluated the CPGs. We identified one CPG for CVD of high methodologic quality. The AGREE II appraisal tool can be used to identify aspects of CPGs that can be developed to improve their methodologic quality.