-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Review and Evaluation of European National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Management of Active Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy in Diabetes Using the AGREE-II Tool Identifies an Absence of Evidence-Based Recommendations
N. Renwick, J. Pallin, R. Bo Jansen, C. Gooday, A. Tardáguila-Garcia, I. Sanz-Corbalán, A. Tentolouris, A. Jirkovská, A. Koller, A. Korzon-Burakowska, N. Petrova, F. Game
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy
PubMed
38899148
DOI
10.1155/2024/7533891
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- diabetická noha terapie diagnóza MeSH
- diabetické neuropatie terapie diagnóza MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- medicína založená na důkazech MeSH
- neuropatická artropatie * terapie diagnóza MeSH
- směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
Background: Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CNO) is a rare but devastating complication of diabetes associated with high rates of morbidity; yet, many nonfoot specialists are unaware of it, resulting in missed and delayed diagnosis. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have proven useful in improving quality of care and standardizing practice in diabetes and diabetic foot care. However, little is known about the consistency in recommendations for identification and management of active CNO. Aim: The aim of this study is to review European national diabetes CPGs for the diagnosis and management of active CNO and to assess their methodological rigor and transparency. Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify diabetes national CPGs across Europe. Guidelines in any language were reviewed to explore whether they provided a definition for active CNO and recommendations for diagnosis, monitoring, and management. Methodological rigor and transparency were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool, which comprises 23 key items organized within six domains with an overall guideline assessment score of ≥ 60% considered to be of adequate quality to recommend use. Each guideline was assessed by two reviewers, and inter-rater agreement (Kendall's W) was calculated for AGREE-II scores. Results: Seventeen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. Breadth of CNO content varied across guidelines (median (IQR) word count: 327; Q1 = 151; Q3 = 790), and 53% provided a definition for active CNO. Recommendations for diagnosis and monitoring were provided by 82% and 53%, respectively, with offloading being the most common management recommendation (88%). Four guidelines (24%) reached threshold for recommendation for use in clinical practice (≥ 60%) with the scope and purpose domain scoring highest (mean (SD): 67%, ± 23%). The remaining domains had average scores ranging between 19% and 53%. Inter-rater agreement was strong (W = 0.882; p < 0.001). Conclusions: European national CPGs for diabetes provide limited recommendations on active CNO. All guidelines showcased deficits in their methodology, suggesting that more rigorous methods should be employed for diabetes CPG development across Europe.
Bispebjerg Hospital University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
Diabetes Centre Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Diabetic Foot Clinic King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UK
Diabetic Foot Unit Complutense University of Madrid Madrid Spain
Division of Preventive Medicine and Education Medical University of Gdańsk Gdańsk Poland
School of Medicine National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece
School of Public Health University College Cork Cork Ireland
School of Sports Health and Exercise Science University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK
Technical Orthopaedics and Diabetic Foot Surgery Klinik Dr Guth Hamburg Germany
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24013534
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20240905134204.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 240725e20240610enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1155/2024/7533891 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)38899148
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Renwick, Nichola $u School of Sports, Health and Exercise Science University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK $1 https://orcid.org/000000029609021X
- 245 10
- $a Review and Evaluation of European National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Management of Active Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy in Diabetes Using the AGREE-II Tool Identifies an Absence of Evidence-Based Recommendations / $c N. Renwick, J. Pallin, R. Bo Jansen, C. Gooday, A. Tardáguila-Garcia, I. Sanz-Corbalán, A. Tentolouris, A. Jirkovská, A. Koller, A. Korzon-Burakowska, N. Petrova, F. Game
- 520 9_
- $a Background: Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CNO) is a rare but devastating complication of diabetes associated with high rates of morbidity; yet, many nonfoot specialists are unaware of it, resulting in missed and delayed diagnosis. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have proven useful in improving quality of care and standardizing practice in diabetes and diabetic foot care. However, little is known about the consistency in recommendations for identification and management of active CNO. Aim: The aim of this study is to review European national diabetes CPGs for the diagnosis and management of active CNO and to assess their methodological rigor and transparency. Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify diabetes national CPGs across Europe. Guidelines in any language were reviewed to explore whether they provided a definition for active CNO and recommendations for diagnosis, monitoring, and management. Methodological rigor and transparency were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool, which comprises 23 key items organized within six domains with an overall guideline assessment score of ≥ 60% considered to be of adequate quality to recommend use. Each guideline was assessed by two reviewers, and inter-rater agreement (Kendall's W) was calculated for AGREE-II scores. Results: Seventeen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. Breadth of CNO content varied across guidelines (median (IQR) word count: 327; Q1 = 151; Q3 = 790), and 53% provided a definition for active CNO. Recommendations for diagnosis and monitoring were provided by 82% and 53%, respectively, with offloading being the most common management recommendation (88%). Four guidelines (24%) reached threshold for recommendation for use in clinical practice (≥ 60%) with the scope and purpose domain scoring highest (mean (SD): 67%, ± 23%). The remaining domains had average scores ranging between 19% and 53%. Inter-rater agreement was strong (W = 0.882; p < 0.001). Conclusions: European national CPGs for diabetes provide limited recommendations on active CNO. All guidelines showcased deficits in their methodology, suggesting that more rigorous methods should be employed for diabetes CPG development across Europe.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
- 650 12
- $a neuropatická artropatie $x terapie $x diagnóza $7 D001177
- 650 _2
- $a medicína založená na důkazech $7 D019317
- 650 _2
- $a diabetická noha $x terapie $x diagnóza $7 D017719
- 650 _2
- $a diabetické neuropatie $x terapie $x diagnóza $7 D003929
- 651 _2
- $a Evropa $7 D005060
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a přehledy $7 D016454
- 700 1_
- $a Pallin, Jennifer $u School of Public Health University College Cork, Cork, Ireland $1 https://orcid.org/0000000314346152
- 700 1_
- $a Bo Jansen, Rasmus $u Bispebjerg Hospital University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark $1 https://orcid.org/0000000326927157
- 700 1_
- $a Gooday, Catherine $u Elsie Bertram Diabetes Centre Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK $1 https://orcid.org/0000000150266788
- 700 1_
- $a Tardáguila-Garcia, Aroa $u Diabetic Foot Unit Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain $1 https://orcid.org/0000000156507351
- 700 1_
- $a Sanz-Corbalán, Irene $u Diabetic Foot Unit Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain $1 https://orcid.org/0000000328572564
- 700 1_
- $a Tentolouris, Anastasios $u School of Medicine National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece $1 https://orcid.org/000000015897472X
- 700 1_
- $a Jirkovská, Alexandra $u Diabetes Centre Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/000000023622997X
- 700 1_
- $a Koller, Armin $u Technical Orthopaedics & Diabetic Foot Surgery Klinik Dr. Guth, Hamburg, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Korzon-Burakowska, Anna $u Division of Preventive Medicine & Education Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland $1 https://orcid.org/0000000256551798
- 700 1_
- $a Petrova, Nina $u Diabetic Foot Clinic King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK $1 https://orcid.org/0000000169376565
- 700 1_
- $a Game, Frances $u Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK $1 https://orcid.org/0000000252944789
- 773 0_
- $w MED00181720 $t Journal of diabetes research $x 2314-6753 $g Roč. 2024 (20240610), s. 7533891
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38899148 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20240725 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20240905134158 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2143382 $s 1225400
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 2024 $c - $d 7533891 $e 20240610 $i 2314-6753 $m Journal of diabetes research $n J Diabetes Res $x MED00181720
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20240725