使用 AGREE II 工具对澳大利亚和新西兰儿科视力筛查临床实践指南进行批判性评估。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Clinical and Experimental Optometry Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1080/08164622.2024.2339276
Cassandra Haines, Ranjay Chakraborty, Kyden Kho, Jessica Henman, Najiba Mansouri, Nicola S Anstice
{"title":"使用 AGREE II 工具对澳大利亚和新西兰儿科视力筛查临床实践指南进行批判性评估。","authors":"Cassandra Haines, Ranjay Chakraborty, Kyden Kho, Jessica Henman, Najiba Mansouri, Nicola S Anstice","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2024.2339276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Vision disorders in children impact health-related quality of life, with early detection and intervention improving outcomes and educational performance. Eye health professionals should be aware of paediatric vision screening guidelines and their development to understand the components of local programmes and the differences in sensitivity and specificity between protocols.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for vision screening enable the early detection of common vision disorders; however, they require rigorous development to ensure optimal accuracy in detecting vision disorders, enabling timely interventions. This study evaluated the quality of available vision screening CPGs on vision screening of children in Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of academic databases, guideline databases, professional associations and Google search engines was conducted to identify relevant paediatric vision screening CPGs. Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the quality of individual guidelines and scores were aggregated and reported as the percentage of the total possible score across the six AGREE II domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial 2,999 items were evaluated, with seven guidelines included. AGREE-II quality score agreement ranged from 43.3% to 95.8%. All guidelines scored >60.0% in the scope and purpose, however, most had poor scores of <26.5% in the rigour of development and <3.3% in editorial independence domains. All guidelines recommended screening using measures of habitual distance vision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Of the guidelines developed for use in Australia and New Zealand, most guidelines scored poorly when assessed against the AGREE II tool, because of lack of editorial independence and rigour of development. Paediatric vision screening guidelines should prioritise systematic review of literature to inform practice and include statements regarding competing interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"175-182"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical appraisal of Australian and New Zealand paediatric vision screening clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool.\",\"authors\":\"Cassandra Haines, Ranjay Chakraborty, Kyden Kho, Jessica Henman, Najiba Mansouri, Nicola S Anstice\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08164622.2024.2339276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Vision disorders in children impact health-related quality of life, with early detection and intervention improving outcomes and educational performance. Eye health professionals should be aware of paediatric vision screening guidelines and their development to understand the components of local programmes and the differences in sensitivity and specificity between protocols.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for vision screening enable the early detection of common vision disorders; however, they require rigorous development to ensure optimal accuracy in detecting vision disorders, enabling timely interventions. This study evaluated the quality of available vision screening CPGs on vision screening of children in Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of academic databases, guideline databases, professional associations and Google search engines was conducted to identify relevant paediatric vision screening CPGs. Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the quality of individual guidelines and scores were aggregated and reported as the percentage of the total possible score across the six AGREE II domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial 2,999 items were evaluated, with seven guidelines included. AGREE-II quality score agreement ranged from 43.3% to 95.8%. All guidelines scored >60.0% in the scope and purpose, however, most had poor scores of <26.5% in the rigour of development and <3.3% in editorial independence domains. All guidelines recommended screening using measures of habitual distance vision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Of the guidelines developed for use in Australia and New Zealand, most guidelines scored poorly when assessed against the AGREE II tool, because of lack of editorial independence and rigour of development. Paediatric vision screening guidelines should prioritise systematic review of literature to inform practice and include statements regarding competing interests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Optometry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"175-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Optometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2339276\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2339276","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床意义:儿童视力障碍会影响与健康相关的生活质量,而早期发现和干预则能改善儿童的视力状况和学习成绩。眼科保健专业人员应了解儿科视力筛查指南及其发展情况,以了解当地计划的组成部分以及不同方案在灵敏度和特异性方面的差异:背景:高质量的视力筛查临床实践指南(CPGs)能够及早发现常见的视力障碍;然而,这些指南需要严格制定,以确保检测视力障碍的最佳准确性,从而及时采取干预措施。本研究评估了澳大利亚和新西兰现有的儿童视力筛查临床指南的质量:方法:对学术数据库、指南数据库、专业协会和谷歌搜索引擎进行了系统搜索,以确定相关的儿科视力筛查 CPG。四位独立评审员使用 "指南、研究和评估评估"(AGREE II)工具对各指南的质量进行评估,并汇总分数,以总分在 AGREE II 六个领域(范围和目的、利益相关者的参与、制定的严谨性、表述的清晰度、适用性和编辑的独立性)中所占的百分比进行报告:结果:最初评估了 2999 个项目,其中包括七项指南。AGREE-II 质量得分的一致性从 43.3% 到 95.8% 不等。所有指南在范围和目的方面的得分均大于 60.0%,但大多数指南在结论方面得分较低:在澳大利亚和新西兰制定的指南中,由于缺乏编辑独立性和制定的严谨性,大多数指南在 AGREE II 工具的评估中得分较低。儿科视力筛查指南应优先考虑对文献进行系统性审查,为实践提供依据,并包含有关利益冲突的声明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical appraisal of Australian and New Zealand paediatric vision screening clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool.

Clinical relevance: Vision disorders in children impact health-related quality of life, with early detection and intervention improving outcomes and educational performance. Eye health professionals should be aware of paediatric vision screening guidelines and their development to understand the components of local programmes and the differences in sensitivity and specificity between protocols.

Background: High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for vision screening enable the early detection of common vision disorders; however, they require rigorous development to ensure optimal accuracy in detecting vision disorders, enabling timely interventions. This study evaluated the quality of available vision screening CPGs on vision screening of children in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods: A systematic search of academic databases, guideline databases, professional associations and Google search engines was conducted to identify relevant paediatric vision screening CPGs. Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the quality of individual guidelines and scores were aggregated and reported as the percentage of the total possible score across the six AGREE II domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.

Results: Initial 2,999 items were evaluated, with seven guidelines included. AGREE-II quality score agreement ranged from 43.3% to 95.8%. All guidelines scored >60.0% in the scope and purpose, however, most had poor scores of <26.5% in the rigour of development and <3.3% in editorial independence domains. All guidelines recommended screening using measures of habitual distance vision.

Conclusion: Of the guidelines developed for use in Australia and New Zealand, most guidelines scored poorly when assessed against the AGREE II tool, because of lack of editorial independence and rigour of development. Paediatric vision screening guidelines should prioritise systematic review of literature to inform practice and include statements regarding competing interests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信