A Systematic Review of the Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

• Published in: Annals of vascular surgery Vol. 100; pp. 81 - 90
• Main Authors: Lee, Adele Hwee Hong, Wright, Adele Philippa, Westcott, Mark J., Shan, Leonard L., Choong, Peter F., Davies, Alun H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Inc 01-03-2024
• Subjects: Chronic Disease; Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia - diagnosis; Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia - therapy; Evidence-Based Medicine - standards; Humans; Ischemia - diagnosis; Ischemia - physiopathology; Ischemia - therapy; Peripheral Arterial Disease - diagnosis; Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards; Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0890-5096; 1615-5947; 1615-5947
• DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.10.025

To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.
A systematic review of Medline, Embase, and online CPG databases was carried out. Four CPGs on CLTI were identified: Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American College of Cardiology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Two independent appraisers analyzed the 4 CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. CPGs were ranked across 6 domains with 23 items that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A scaled domain score was calculated as a percentage of the maximum possible score achievable. A domain score of ≥50% and an overall average domain score of ≥80% reflected a CPG of adequate quality recommended for use.
GVG had the highest overall score (82.9%), as an average of all domains, and ESC had the lowest score (50.2%). GVG and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines had all domains scoring >50%, while American College of Cardiology had 5 and ESC had 3. Two domains, rigor of development and applicability, scored the lowest among the CPGs. There was a lack of detail in describing systematic methods used in the literature review, how guidelines were formulated with minimal bias, and the planned procedure for updating the guidelines. Implications of guideline application and monitoring of outcomes after implementations were not explicitly discussed.
The GVG guideline published in 2019 discussing CLTI is assessed to be of high quality and recommended for use. This review helps to improve clinical decision-making and quality of future CPGs for CLTI.