Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e58625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058625. Epub 2013 Apr 5.
Several studies have reported that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in a variety of clinical areas are of modest or variable quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of an international cohort of CPGs that provide recommendations on pharmaceutical management of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).
We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) on February 15th and June 4th, 2012 for CPGs meeting inclusion criteria. Two independent assessors rated the quality of each CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Twenty-four guidelines were evaluated, and most had high scores for clarity and presentation. However, scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, and applicability domains varied considerably. The majority of guidelines scored low on editorial independence, and only seven CPGs were based on an underlying systematic review of the evidence.
The overall quality of CPGs for glycemic control in DM2 is moderate, but there is substantial variability among quality domains within and across guidelines. Guideline users need to be aware of this variability and carefully appraise and select the guidelines that they apply to patient care.
多项研究报告指出,各种临床领域的临床实践指南(CPGs)的质量中等或存在差异。本研究的目的是评估一组提供 2 型糖尿病患者血糖管理药物治疗建议的国际 CPG 的质量。
我们于 2012 年 2 月 15 日和 6 月 4 日在国家指南交换中心(NGC)搜索符合纳入标准的 CPG。两名独立评估员使用评估指南研究与评估 II(AGREE II)工具对每个 CPG 的质量进行了评估。评估了 24 条指南,大多数指南在清晰度和呈现方面得分较高。但是,范围和目的、利益相关者的参与、开发的严谨性和适用性领域存在很大差异。大多数指南在编辑独立性方面得分较低,只有 7 条 CPG 是基于对证据的系统审查。
DM2 血糖控制 CPG 的总体质量中等,但在指南内和跨指南的质量领域存在很大差异。指南使用者需要意识到这种差异,并仔细评估和选择他们应用于患者护理的指南。