Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México; Departamento de Cirugía Vascular y Endovascular, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Nov;108:426-436. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.019. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
No evaluation of the quality of different carotid guidelines using validated scales has been performed to date. The present study aims to analyze 3 carotid stenosis guidelines, apprizing their quality and reporting using validated tools.
A survey-based assessment of the quality of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023, European Stroke Organisation (ESO) 2021, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2021 carotid stenosis guidelines, was performed by 43 vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologist or interventional radiologists using 2 validated appraisal tools for quality and reporting guidelines, the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT statement.
Using the AGREE II tool, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 87.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively (P = 0.001) The ESVS and ESO had better scores in the scope and purpose domain, and the SVS in the clarity of presentation domain. In the RIGHT statement, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 84.0.7%, 74.3%, and 79.0%, respectively (P = 0.001). All 3 guidelines stood out for their methodology for search of evidence and formulating evidence-based recommendations. On the contrary, were negatively evaluated mostly in the cost and resource implications in formulating the recommendations.
The 2023 ESVS carotid stenosis guideline was the best evaluated among the 3 guidelines, with scores over 5% higher than the other 2 guidelines. Efforts should be made by guideline writing committees to take the AGREE II and RIGHT statements into account in the development of future guidelines to produce high-quality recommendations.
迄今为止，尚未使用经过验证的量表对不同颈动脉指南的质量进行评估。本研究旨在使用经过验证的工具分析 3 种颈动脉狭窄指南，评估其质量和报告。
通过问卷调查，由 43 名血管外科医生、心脏病专家、神经学家或介入放射学家使用 2 种经过验证的评估质量和报告指南的工具，即 AGREE II 工具和 RIGHT 声明，对欧洲血管外科学会（ESVS）2023 年、欧洲卒中组织（ESO）2021 年和血管外科学会（SVS）2021 年颈动脉狭窄指南进行评估。
使用 AGREE II 工具，ESVS、SVS 和 ESO 指南的总体质量评分分别为 87.3%、79.4%和 82.9%（P=0.001）。ESVS 和 ESO 在范围和目的领域得分较高，而 SVS 在表述清晰度领域得分较高。在 RIGHT 声明中，ESVS、SVS 和 ESO 指南的总体质量评分为 84.0、74.3 和 79.0（P=0.001）。所有 3 种指南在搜索证据和制定基于证据的推荐方面的方法都非常出色。相反，在制定推荐时，成本和资源影响方面的评价较差。
在这 3 种指南中，2023 年 ESVS 颈动脉狭窄指南的评价最高，比其他 2 种指南高出 5%以上。指南编写委员会应努力考虑使用 AGREE II 和 RIGHT 声明，以在未来指南的制定中产生高质量的推荐。
