A systematic review of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for lymphedema, as assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument

Abstract

ObjectiveWe assessed the quality of current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lymphedema using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. CPGs provide recommendations for the management of medical conditions such as lymphedema. However, their evidentiary quality and methodology should determine their reliability. The AGREE II instrument was developed to externally and objectively evaluate the quality of CPGs and has been used to assess other nonvascular CPGs. A systematic review identified four CPGs for lymphedema of varying content: Lymphedema Framework's Best Practice for the Management of Lymphedema (LED F); Japanese Lymphedema Study Group—A Practice Guideline for the Management of Lymphedema (J LED); Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of Lymphedema; and Guidelines of the American Venous Forum (AVF). The quality of these CPGs appeared to vary. MethodsThe four CPGs were analyzed using the AGREE II instrument by three independent graders, who were unaware of each other's scores. Six domains with 23 items were graded using a Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; to 7, strongly agree) regarding whether the CPG had satisfied the requirements of each item. The score for each domain was calculated by summing the scores for each item in that domain and scaling the total as a percentage of the maximum possible score for that domain (ie, obtained score − minimum score/maximum possible score − minimum possible score × 100 = percentage). ResultsCREST had the highest overall score (66.8%), as an average of all domains, and J LED had the lowest (37%). CREST also had five of five domains rated >50%. In contrast, J LED had only one and AVF had only two domains that scored >50%. Although two domains, rigor of development and applicability, scored low, with only one CPG scoring >50%, the editorial independence domain scored the lowest of all six domains. ConclusionsIn addition to limitations in content and the lack of contemporary references, the four CPGs studied were judged objectively to be of low quality using the AGREE II instrument. A contemporary CPG for lymphedema, guided by the AGREE II requirements, is needed.