IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0217555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quality of guidelines for diabetic foot ulcers: A critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Peiying Zhang
  • Qian Lu
  • Huijuan Li
  • Wei Wang
  • Gaoqiang Li
  • Longmei Si
  • Yanming Ding

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines(CPGs) for patients with diabetic foot worldwide. A search of guidelines websites, databases and academic institutions websites was performed from January 1st, 2010, until June 30th, 2018. Four assessors independently rated the quality of each CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Twelve CPGs satisfied the inclusion criteria. The median scores for the 6 AGREE II domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence) were 92.5%, 72.5%, 71.5%, 89%, 47%, and 77%, respectively. The overall quality of the CPGs was good since the majority of the CPGs reached an overall guideline quality between 5 and 7 points. Different CPGs had widely varying scores in the same area, ranging from 25 to 94 points.

Suggested Citation

  • Peiying Zhang & Qian Lu & Huijuan Li & Wei Wang & Gaoqiang Li & Longmei Si & Yanming Ding, 2019. "The quality of guidelines for diabetic foot ulcers: A critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-11, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0217555
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217555
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217555&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0217555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0217555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.