ORIGINAL RESEARCH; QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CURRENT GUIDELINES ON SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS OF PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE; A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Author:

Uyagu OORCID,Ofoegbu CORCID,Ikhidero J,Chukwuka EORCID,Enwere OORCID,Ogierhiakhi O,Adelosoye A.

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionPeripheral Artery Disease (PAD) is a major atherosclerotic disease, and there are several clinical practice guidelines available for it. The paucity of strong evidence is known to give room for variations in recommendations across guidelines with attendant confusion amongst clinicians in clinical practice. This study aims to conduct a quality assessment and comparative analysis on PAD screening and diagnostic recommendations in the management of PAD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of CPGs’ written after 2010 and on or before 2020. An exhaustive search was conducted through the major medical databases and websites of specialist international organisations of interest and using our inclusion criteria, the appropriate guidelines were extracted. The AGREE-II instrument was used for quality assessment, while the recommendations across screening and diagnosis were extracted and then comparatively analysed.ResultsWe found nine guidelines that fit our criteria. The guidelines had the lowest scores across the applicability and stakeholder involvement domains. The highest scores were recorded in the Clarity of presentation, Scope and purpose and Editorial independence in order of decreasing magnitude. Also, the trend was the guideline quality scores improved over time. The guidelines were unanimous in offering to screen to ‘high-risk ‘patients, although there were some discrepancies in the appropriate age range and unavailability of strong evidence across the guidelines backing this recommendation. The guidelines also showed harmony in adopting the Ankle-Brachial index as the initial diagnostic investigation of choice. However, concerning further diagnostic investigations and imaging, we found several discrepancies among the recommendations in the absence of strong evidence.ConclusionThough the quality of the guidelines is shown to be improving over time, they display poor scores in the stakeholder involvement and applicability domains, which could be influencing low interest in research that can improve screening and diagnostic recommendations.STRENGHTS AND LIMITATIONS-This review, unlike previous studies, focused on Peripheral Arterial Diseases(PAD) guidelines written after 2010 and reflects a synthesis of the current state of guideline quality and the most recent recommendations in PAD management regarding screening and diagnosis.-Complex data has been aggregated, comparatively assessed using thematic analysis and the results presented in concise and straightforward forms using texts, charts and tables to satisfy the needs of all kinds of readers alike from the medical research community to the patients and public reader.-By utilising rigorous systematic review methodology and a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to the data analysis, this study has revealed the current areas of strengths and weaknesses of the quality of the PAD guidelines, which is inadvertently related to the reason behind the persisting absence of high-level evidence in screening and diagnostic recommendations.-Qualitative analyses are inherently challenging to process, especially when dealing with clinical practise guidelines (CPGs’) that contain large amounts of information; as such, the process was cumbersome and time-consuming with the inevitable loss of data during the thematic classification process.-During the literature search, the search strategies were executed exclusively in English Language labouring under the auspices that the major PAD CPG’s will have an English language translation, so it is possible that some guidelines written within the study timeframe were not captured due to this limitation.RegistrationRegistrated in PROSPERO; ID; CRD42020219176

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3