Editor's Choice - Quality Assessment of European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines

Satchithanantham Vinojan; Thushan D Gooneratne; Christopher P Twine; Robert J Hinchliffe

doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.06.005

Editor's Choice - Quality Assessment of European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023 Sep;66(3):304-312. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.06.005. Epub 2023 Jun 15.

Authors

Satchithanantham Vinojan¹, Thushan D Gooneratne², Christopher P Twine³, Robert J Hinchliffe⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, Jaffna, Sri Lanka; University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: vinojan@univ.jfn.ac.lk.
² University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
³ Department of Vascular Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, UK.
⁴ University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Department of Vascular Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, UK.

PMID: 37330203
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.06.005

Abstract

Objective: An increasing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have emerged over recent years. To have clinical utility, they need to be rigorously developed and scientifically robust. Instruments have been developed to assess the quality of clinical guideline development and reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate CPGs from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Methods: CPGs published by the ESVS during the period January 2011 to January 2023 were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the guidelines after receiving training in the use and application of the AGREE II instrument. Inter-reviewer reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Maximum scaled scores were 100. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics v.26.

Results: Sixteen guidelines were included in the study. Good inter-reviewer score reliability was found on statistical analysis (> 0.9). The mean ± standard deviation domain scores were 68.1 ± 20.3% for scope and purpose, 57.1 ± 21.1% for stakeholder involvement, 67.8 ± 19.5% for rigour of development, 78.1 ± 20.6% for clarity of presentation, 50.3 ± 15.4% for applicability, 77.6 ± 17.6% for editorial independence, and 69.8 ± 20.1% for overall quality. Stakeholder involvement and applicability have improved in quality over time but are still the lowest scoring domains.

Conclusion: Most ESVS clinical guidelines are of high quality and reporting. There is scope for improvement, specifically by addressing the domains of stakeholder involvement and clinical applicability.

Keywords: AGREE II; Guidelines; Quality.