Wu Connie M, Wu Annie M, Young Benjamin K, Wu Dominic J, Margo Curtis E, Greenberg Paul B
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, RI Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI.
Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL.
Am J Med Qual. 2016 Jul;31(4):370-5. doi: 10.1177/1062860615574863. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
The objective is to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS), and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) for diabetic retinopathy. Four evaluators independently appraised the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, which covers 6 domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigor of Development, Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, and Editorial Independence). Scores ranged from 35% to 78% (AAO), 60% to 92% (COS), and 35% to 82% (RCO). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the reliability of mean scores were 0.78, 0.78, and 0.79, respectively. The strongest domains were Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation (COS). The weakest were Stakeholder Involvement (AAO), Rigor of Development (AAO, RCO), Applicability, and Editorial Independence (RCO). Diabetic retinopathy practice guidelines can be improved by targeting Stakeholder Involvement, Rigor of Development, Applicability, and Editorial Independence.
目的是评估美国眼科学会（AAO）、加拿大眼科学会（COS）和皇家眼科医学院（RCO）发布的糖尿病视网膜病变临床实践指南（CPG）的方法学质量。四名评估者使用《研究与评估指南评估》（AGREE）II工具独立评估这些CPG，该工具涵盖6个领域（范围与目的、利益相关者参与、制定的严谨性、表述的清晰度、适用性和编辑独立性）。得分范围为35%至78%（AAO）、60%至92%（COS）和35%至82%（RCO）。平均得分可靠性的组内相关系数分别为0.78、0.78和0.79。最强的领域是范围与目的以及表述的清晰度（COS）。最薄弱的是利益相关者参与（AAO）、制定的严谨性（AAO、RCO）、适用性和编辑独立性（RCO）。通过针对利益相关者参与、制定的严谨性、适用性和编辑独立性，可以改进糖尿病视网膜病变实践指南。
