Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020 Nov;8(6):1111-1118.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.05.004. Epub 2020 May 23.
The objective of this review was to determine the methodologic quality of current lymphedema clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assist health care professionals in selecting accessible, high-quality guidance and to identify areas for improvement in future CPGs.
MEDLINE, Embase, online CPG databases, and reference lists of included guidelines were searched up to January 31, 2020. Full-text CPGs reporting on evidence-based recommendations in lymphedema diagnosis or management in English were included. CPGs based on expert consensus, CPG summaries, or CPGs that were not freely available were excluded. Two reviewers identified eligible CPGs, extracted data, and assessed their quality independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Significant scoring discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer. An overall scaled quality score of ≥80% was the threshold to recommend guideline use.
Six relevant CPGs were identified. One was subsequently excluded as its full text could not be obtained. Overall, there was very good inter-reviewer reliability of scores with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.952 (95% confidence interval, 0.921-0.974). No single CPG scored highest in all domains, with methodologic heterogeneity observed. Poor performance was noted in domain 5 (mean scaled score, 23.8% ± 17.1%) and domain 6 (22.9% ± 26.7%). No CPG achieved an overall scaled quality score of ≥80%, with the top CPG scoring 79.2%.
According to the defined threshold, no lymphedema CPG was considered adequate for use in clinical practice. All current lymphedema CPGs have areas for improvement with elements of methodologic quality lacking, particularly with respect to rigor of development. A structured approach, guided by the use of CPG creation tools and checklists such as the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, should help CPG development groups in improving the quality of future CPGs. This is of particular importance in a complex, multidisciplinary condition such as lymphedema.
本综述旨在评估当前淋巴水肿临床实践指南(CPG)的方法学质量,以帮助医疗保健专业人员选择可获取的高质量指南,并确定未来 CPG 中需要改进的领域。
截至 2020 年 1 月 31 日,检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、在线 CPG 数据库和纳入指南的参考文献列表。纳入了报告淋巴水肿诊断或管理中基于证据的推荐的英文全文 CPG。排除基于专家共识、CPG 摘要或无法免费获得的 CPG。两名审查员独立识别合格的 CPG、提取数据并使用评估研究和评估指南 II 工具评估其质量。对有显著评分差异的情况与第三位审查员进行了讨论。总体评分≥80%是推荐使用指南的阈值。
确定了 6 项相关 CPG。其中 1 项因无法获得全文而被排除。总体而言,评分的两位审查员间具有非常好的可靠性,组内相关系数为 0.952(95%置信区间,0.921-0.974)。没有一个 CPG 在所有领域都得分最高,存在方法学异质性。第 5 域(平均评分,23.8%±17.1%)和第 6 域(22.9%±26.7%)表现不佳。没有一个 CPG 的总体评分达到≥80%,得分最高的 CPG 为 79.2%。
根据定义的阈值,没有一个淋巴水肿 CPG 被认为足以在临床实践中使用。所有当前的淋巴水肿 CPG 都有改进的空间,缺乏方法学质量的要素,特别是在开发的严谨性方面。使用 CPG 制定工具和检查表(如评估研究和评估指南 II 工具)的结构化方法应有助于 CPG 制定小组提高未来 CPG 的质量。在淋巴水肿等复杂的多学科疾病中,这一点尤为重要。