Cited by 43Clinical practice guidelines implementationDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous DiseasesHealth Sciences Research and Education

Venous leg ulcer clinical practice guidelines: what is AGREEd?

Open access
Tan, Matthew K.H., Luo, Rong, Onida, Sarah, Maccatrozzo, Stefano, Davies, Alun H.·2019·European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract

Objective The aim was to evaluate the quality of current venous leg ulcer (VLU) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assist healthcare professionals in choosing an accessible high quality CPG to advise their practice, and to identify areas for improvement in future versions of current CPGs. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, online CPG databases, and reference lists of included CPGs was carried out. Full text CPGs published no earlier than 1998 reporting evidence based recommendations on VLU diagnosis and management in English were included. CPGs that were only available if purchased were excluded. Two reviewers identified eligible CPGs, extracted data, and assessed the quality independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Significant scoring discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer. Results Fourteen eligible CPGs were identified (1999-2016). The majority of CPGs originated from Europe or North America. Overall, there was good inter-reviewer reliability of scores with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.986 (95% confidence interval 0.979-0.991). No single CPG achieved the highest score in all six domains. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed across VLU CPGs; however, consistently, poor performance was noted in domain 5, concerning CPG applicability. Conclusion Four CPGs were considered of adequate quality for clinical use. Consolidation of efforts to drive high quality, comprehensive VLU CPGs is necessary to reduce the number of and heterogeneity seen in currently published guidelines. Elements of methodological quality are lacking and a structured approach with use of checklists and CPG creation tools, such as AGREE II or others, may bolster rigour in future VLU CPGs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.08.043

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, M. K. H., Luo, R., Onida, S., Maccatrozzo, S., & Davies, A. H.
Affiliations
  • Charing Cross Hospital (GB)
  • Italian Institute of Telemedicine (IT)
Corresponding author
Davies, Alun H.
Venue
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
121-129
ISSN
1078-5884 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895715396
Cited by
43
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2017-21-007)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
venous leg ulcers, guideline quality, AGREE II, guideline evaluation, guideline applicability, guideline development, methodological heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Humans, Leg, Research Design, Varicose Ulcer, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review