Background: Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is a worldwide major cause of low vision and blindness. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) constitutes an effective treatment. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are synthesis documents that seek to improve patient care.
Objectives: To identify CPGs that make anti-VEGF recommendations for DME and to assess their reporting quality and their considerations when making recommendations.
Eligibility criteria: CPGs published between December 2009 and December 2019 that make explicit anti-VEGF recommendations in DME.
Sources of evidence: Sensitive search strategy in Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching on 165 websites.
Methods: We extracted information from each CPG with a previously piloted sheet. Two independent authors applied theAppraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE-II) assessment for each CPG.
Results: The 21 included CPGs recommend anti-VEGF for DME, but there is a wide variation among the clinical aspects included, such as location of DME, visual acuity required, therapeutical alternatives or discontinuation. Most have a poor quality of reporting based on the AGREE-II tool assessment, especially those developed by ophthalmological societies, those that have an exclusive content about DME, and those where most of their authors disclose conflict of interest (COI) with pharmaceutical industry or where their authors did not report COIs. Pharmaceutical-sponsored CPGs did not use systematic reviews (SRs) to support their recommendations. Very few recommendations consider patient values and preferences, equity, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.
Conclusions: Most of the CPGs that made recommendations of anti-VEGF for DME have poor quality of reporting, do not use SRs and do not consider patients' values and preferences.
Keywords: drugs; epidemiology; macula; retina; treatment other.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.