基于调查的颈动脉狭窄报告指南质量评估。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
{"title":"基于调查的颈动脉狭窄报告指南质量评估。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>No evaluation of the quality of different carotid guidelines using validated scales has been performed to date. The present study aims to analyze 3 carotid stenosis guidelines, apprizing their quality and reporting using validated tools.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A survey-based assessment of the quality of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023, European Stroke Organisation (ESO) 2021, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2021 carotid stenosis guidelines, was performed by 43 vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologist or interventional radiologists using 2 validated appraisal tools for quality and reporting guidelines, the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT statement.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Using the AGREE II tool, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 87.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively (<em>P</em> = 0.001) The ESVS and ESO had better scores in the scope and purpose domain, and the SVS in the clarity of presentation domain. In the RIGHT statement, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 84.0.7%, 74.3%, and 79.0%, respectively (<em>P</em> = 0.001). All 3 guidelines stood out for their methodology for search of evidence and formulating evidence-based recommendations. On the contrary, were negatively evaluated mostly in the cost and resource implications in formulating the recommendations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The 2023 ESVS carotid stenosis guideline was the best evaluated among the 3 guidelines, with scores over 5% higher than the other 2 guidelines. Efforts should be made by guideline writing committees to take the AGREE II and RIGHT statements into account in the development of future guidelines to produce high-quality recommendations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey-Based Assessment of the Quality of Reporting Guidelines of Carotid Artery Stenosis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>No evaluation of the quality of different carotid guidelines using validated scales has been performed to date. The present study aims to analyze 3 carotid stenosis guidelines, apprizing their quality and reporting using validated tools.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A survey-based assessment of the quality of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023, European Stroke Organisation (ESO) 2021, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2021 carotid stenosis guidelines, was performed by 43 vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologist or interventional radiologists using 2 validated appraisal tools for quality and reporting guidelines, the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT statement.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Using the AGREE II tool, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 87.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively (<em>P</em> = 0.001) The ESVS and ESO had better scores in the scope and purpose domain, and the SVS in the clarity of presentation domain. In the RIGHT statement, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 84.0.7%, 74.3%, and 79.0%, respectively (<em>P</em> = 0.001). All 3 guidelines stood out for their methodology for search of evidence and formulating evidence-based recommendations. On the contrary, were negatively evaluated mostly in the cost and resource implications in formulating the recommendations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The 2023 ESVS carotid stenosis guideline was the best evaluated among the 3 guidelines, with scores over 5% higher than the other 2 guidelines. Efforts should be made by guideline writing committees to take the AGREE II and RIGHT statements into account in the development of future guidelines to produce high-quality recommendations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8061,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of vascular surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of vascular surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089050962400400X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089050962400400X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:迄今为止,尚未使用有效量表对不同颈动脉指南的质量进行评估。本研究旨在分析三份颈动脉狭窄指南,使用有效工具评估其质量和报告情况:方法:43 位血管外科医生、心脏病专家、神经病学专家或介入放射学专家使用 AGREE II 工具和 RIGHT 声明这两种经过验证的指南质量和报告评估工具,对欧洲血管外科学会(ESVS)2023、欧洲卒中组织(ESO)2021 和血管外科学会(SVS)2021 颈动脉狭窄指南的质量进行了调查评估:使用 AGREE II 工具,ESVS、SVS 和 ESO 指南的总体质量得分分别为 87.3%、79.4% 和 82.9%(P=0.001)。ESVS 和 ESO 在范围和目的方面得分更高,SVS 在表述清晰度方面得分更高。在权利声明中,ESVS、SVS 和 ESO 指南的总体质量得分分别为 84.0.7%、74.3% 和 79.0%(p=0.001)。这三份指南在搜索证据和制定循证建议的方法上都很突出。相反,在制定建议时对成本和资源影响的评价大多为负面:结论:2023年ESVS颈动脉狭窄指南是三份指南中评价最好的,得分比其他两份指南高出5%以上。指南编写委员会应努力在今后的指南编写中考虑 AGREE II 和 RIGHT 声明,以提出高质量的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Survey-Based Assessment of the Quality of Reporting Guidelines of Carotid Artery Stenosis

Background

No evaluation of the quality of different carotid guidelines using validated scales has been performed to date. The present study aims to analyze 3 carotid stenosis guidelines, apprizing their quality and reporting using validated tools.

Methods

A survey-based assessment of the quality of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023, European Stroke Organisation (ESO) 2021, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2021 carotid stenosis guidelines, was performed by 43 vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologist or interventional radiologists using 2 validated appraisal tools for quality and reporting guidelines, the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT statement.

Results

Using the AGREE II tool, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 87.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively (P = 0.001) The ESVS and ESO had better scores in the scope and purpose domain, and the SVS in the clarity of presentation domain. In the RIGHT statement, the ESVS, SVS, and ESO guidelines had overall quality scores of 84.0.7%, 74.3%, and 79.0%, respectively (P = 0.001). All 3 guidelines stood out for their methodology for search of evidence and formulating evidence-based recommendations. On the contrary, were negatively evaluated mostly in the cost and resource implications in formulating the recommendations.

Conclusions

The 2023 ESVS carotid stenosis guideline was the best evaluated among the 3 guidelines, with scores over 5% higher than the other 2 guidelines. Efforts should be made by guideline writing committees to take the AGREE II and RIGHT statements into account in the development of future guidelines to produce high-quality recommendations.

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
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
×
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