1 Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325027, China 2 Anyang Eye Hospital, Anyang 455000, China 3 Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan 430000, China 4 The First People's Hospital of Yichang, Yichang 443516, China
Objective: To evaluate and compare the methodological quality of the glaucoma clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to provide references and recommendations for glaucoma guidelines. Methods: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used to assess the seven guidelines, including the AAO's Preferred Practice Pattern (PPP) in Primary Angle Closure (AAO-PAC), the AAO's PPP in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma (AAO-POAG), the AAO's PPP in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Suspect (AAO-POAGS), the EGS's Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma (EGS), ICO Guidelines for Glaucoma Eye Care (ICO), and Asia Pacific Glaucoma Guidelines (APGG) and Consensus of Glaucoma: China (CG). Domain scores were compared and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: The ICCs of the seven guidelines were above 0.9. In general, all the appraised guidelines scored favorably in domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) and domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation), whereas the other domains scored less favorably. The average scores of six domains involved in the included guidelines were 84%±19% (domain 1, Scope and Purpose), 37%±18% (domain 2, Stakeholder Involvement), 25%±25% (domain 3, Rigor of Development), 90%±16% (domain 4, Clarity of Presentation), 34%±10% (domain 5, Application), 40%±34% (domain 6, Editorial). The six domains' respective scores for AAO-POAGS were 99%, 42%, 61%, 97%, 41%, 77%, and for Consensus of Glaucoma: China were 47%, 4%, 8%, 57%, 17%, 0%. Conclusions: AAO-POAGS were strongly recommended among the seven guidelines. There was much room for Chinese glaucoma guidelines to improve in formulating more rigorous guidelines.
Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, et al. Glaucoma. Lancet, 2017, 390(10108): 2183-2193. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31469-1.
[2]
Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2011.
[3]
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ, 2010, 182(18): E839-E842. DOI: 10.1503/ cmaj.090449.
[4]
Brosseau L, Rahman P, Poitras S, et al. A systematic critical appraisal of non-pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. PLoS One, 2014, 9(5): e95369. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0095369.
[5]
Sun M, Zhang M, Shen J, et al. Critical appraisal of international guidelines for the management of diabetic neuropathy: is there global agreement in the internet era? Int J Endocrinol, 2015, 2015: 519032. DOI: 10.1155/2015/519032.
Ou Y, Goldberg I, Migdal C, et al. A critical appraisal and comparison of the quality and recommendations of glaucoma clinical practice guidelines. Ophthalmology, 2011, 118(6): 1017- 1023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.038.
[8]
Michaelov E, Armstrong JJ, Nguyen M, et al. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Glaucoma Clinical Practice Guidelines and Their Recommendations on Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery: A Systematic Review. J Glaucoma, 2018, 27(2): e44-e49. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000820.
[9]
Wu AM, Wu CM, Young BK, et al. Evaluation of primary openangle glaucoma clinical practice guidelines. Can J Ophthalmol, 2015, 50(3): 192-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2015.03.005.
[10]
Prum BE Jr, Herndon LW Jr, Moroi SE, et al. Primary Angle Closure Preferred Practice Pattern( ®) Guidelines. Ophthalmology, 2016, 123(1): P1-P40. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ophtha.2015.10.049.
[11]
Prum BE Jr, Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, et al. Primary openangle glaucoma preferred practice pattern ( ®) guidelines. Ophthalmology, 2016, 123(1): P41-P111. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ophtha.2015.10.053.
[12]
Prum BE Jr, Lim MC, Mansberger SL, et al. Primary OpenAngle Glaucoma Suspect Preferred Practice Pattern ( ®) Guidelines. Ophthalmology, 2016, 123(1): P112-151. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.055.
[13]
European glaucoma society terminology and guidelines for glaucoma, 4th edition. Br J Ophthalmol, 2017, 101(5): 73-127. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-EGSguideline.002.
[14]
Gupta N, Aung T, Congdon N, et al. ICO Glaucoma Guidelines for Glaucoma Eye Care 2015. http://www.icoph.org/downloads/ ICOGlaucomaGuidelines.pdf.
[15]
Aung T, Crowston J, Chen H, et al. Asia pacific glaucoma guidelines. 3 ed. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 2016.
Kirby JS, Scharnitz T, Seiverling EV, et al. Actinic keratosis clinical practice guidelines: An appraisal of quality. Dermatol Res Pract, 2015, 2015: 456071. DOI: 10.1155/2015/456071.
[18]
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med, 2016, 15(2): 155-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
[19]
Maymone M, Gan SD, Bigby M. Evaluating the strength of clinical recommendations in the medical literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE. J Invest Dermatol, 2014, 134(10): 1-5. DOI: 10.1038/jid.2014.335.
Zebardast N, Solus JF, Quigley HA, et al. Comparison of resident and glaucoma faculty practice patterns in the care of open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol, 2015,15: 41. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-015-0027-x.
[22]
Malik R, Baker H, Russell RA, et al. A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines. BMJ Open, 2013, 3(5). Pii: e002067. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002067.
[23]
Sloan FA, Brown DS, Carlisle ES, et al. Monitoring visual status: why patients do or do not comply with practice guidelines. Health Serv Res, 2004, 39(5): 1429-1448. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475- 6773.2004.00297.x.
[24]
World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development, 2nd edition. Gereva: WHO Press. 2014.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号