RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH; QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CURRENT GUIDELINES ON SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS OF PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE; A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.02.02.22270053
DO 10.1101/2022.02.02.22270053
A1 Uyagu, O
A1 Ofoegbu, C
A1 Ikhidero, J
A1 Chukwuka, E
A1 Enwere, O
A1 Ogierhiakhi, O
A1 Adelosoye, A.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/04/2022.02.02.22270053.abstract
AB Introduction Peripheral 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.Methods We 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.Results We 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.Conclusion Though 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.Registration Registrated in PROSPERO; ID; CRD42020219176Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047980 Funding StatementNo external fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesScience Data Bank https://www.scidb.cn/anonymous/VTNleUVi