Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development?

Eva Nagy, Joseph Watine, Peter S. Bunting, Rita Onody, Wytze P. Oosterhuis, Dunja Rogic, Sverre Sandberg, K. Boda, Andrea R. Horvath

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the methodological quality of therapeutic guidelines (GLs) has been criticized, little is known regarding the quality of GLs that make diagnostic recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the methodological quality of GLs providing diagnostic recommendations for managing diabetes mellitus (DM) and explored several reasons for differences in quality across these GLs. METHODS: After systematic searches of published and electronic resources dated between 1999 and 2007, 26 DM GLs, published in English, were selected and scored for methodological quality using the AGREE Instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the source, scope, length, origin, and date and type of publication of GLs. Using a checklist, we collected laboratory-specific items within GLs thought to be important for interpretation of test results. RESULTS: The 26 diagnostic GLs had significant short-comings in methodological quality according to the AGREE criteria. GLs from agencies that had clear procedures for GL development, were longer than 50 pages, or were published in electronic databases were of higher quality. Diagnostic GLs contained more preanalytical or analytical information than combined (i.e., diagnostic and therapeutic) recommendations, but the overall quality was not significantly different. The quality of GLs did not show much improvement over the time period investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological shortcomings of diagnostic GLs in DM raise questions regarding the validity of recommendations in these documents that may affect their implementation in practice. Our results suggest the need for standardization of GL terminology and for higher-quality, systematically developed recommendations based on explicit guideline development and reporting standards in laboratory medicine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1872-1882
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Chemistry
Volume54
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2008

Fingerprint

Medical problems
Diabetes Mellitus
Guidelines
Monitoring
Terminology
Standardization
Medicine
Checklist
Publications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, medical

Cite this

Nagy, E., Watine, J., Bunting, P. S., Onody, R., Oosterhuis, W. P., Rogic, D., ... Horvath, A. R. (2008). Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development? Clinical Chemistry, 54(11), 1872-1882. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.109082

Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development? / Nagy, Eva; Watine, Joseph; Bunting, Peter S.; Onody, Rita; Oosterhuis, Wytze P.; Rogic, Dunja; Sandberg, Sverre; Boda, K.; Horvath, Andrea R.

In: Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 54, No. 11, 01.11.2008, p. 1872-1882.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nagy, E, Watine, J, Bunting, PS, Onody, R, Oosterhuis, WP, Rogic, D, Sandberg, S, Boda, K & Horvath, AR 2008, 'Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development?', Clinical Chemistry, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1872-1882. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.109082
Nagy, Eva ; Watine, Joseph ; Bunting, Peter S. ; Onody, Rita ; Oosterhuis, Wytze P. ; Rogic, Dunja ; Sandberg, Sverre ; Boda, K. ; Horvath, Andrea R. / Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development?. In: Clinical Chemistry. 2008 ; Vol. 54, No. 11. pp. 1872-1882.
@article{22a20597f64e4c069e049d7deca61b83,
title = "Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Although the methodological quality of therapeutic guidelines (GLs) has been criticized, little is known regarding the quality of GLs that make diagnostic recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the methodological quality of GLs providing diagnostic recommendations for managing diabetes mellitus (DM) and explored several reasons for differences in quality across these GLs. METHODS: After systematic searches of published and electronic resources dated between 1999 and 2007, 26 DM GLs, published in English, were selected and scored for methodological quality using the AGREE Instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the source, scope, length, origin, and date and type of publication of GLs. Using a checklist, we collected laboratory-specific items within GLs thought to be important for interpretation of test results. RESULTS: The 26 diagnostic GLs had significant short-comings in methodological quality according to the AGREE criteria. GLs from agencies that had clear procedures for GL development, were longer than 50 pages, or were published in electronic databases were of higher quality. Diagnostic GLs contained more preanalytical or analytical information than combined (i.e., diagnostic and therapeutic) recommendations, but the overall quality was not significantly different. The quality of GLs did not show much improvement over the time period investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological shortcomings of diagnostic GLs in DM raise questions regarding the validity of recommendations in these documents that may affect their implementation in practice. Our results suggest the need for standardization of GL terminology and for higher-quality, systematically developed recommendations based on explicit guideline development and reporting standards in laboratory medicine.",
author = "Eva Nagy and Joseph Watine and Bunting, {Peter S.} and Rita Onody and Oosterhuis, {Wytze P.} and Dunja Rogic and Sverre Sandberg and K. Boda and Horvath, {Andrea R.}",
year = "2008",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1373/clinchem.2008.109082",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "1872--1882",
journal = "Clinical Chemistry",
issn = "0009-9147",
publisher = "American Association for Clinical Chemistry Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do guidelines for the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus fulfill the criteria of evidence-based guideline development?

AU - Nagy, Eva

AU - Watine, Joseph

AU - Bunting, Peter S.

AU - Onody, Rita

AU - Oosterhuis, Wytze P.

AU - Rogic, Dunja

AU - Sandberg, Sverre

AU - Boda, K.

AU - Horvath, Andrea R.

PY - 2008/11/1

Y1 - 2008/11/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Although the methodological quality of therapeutic guidelines (GLs) has been criticized, little is known regarding the quality of GLs that make diagnostic recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the methodological quality of GLs providing diagnostic recommendations for managing diabetes mellitus (DM) and explored several reasons for differences in quality across these GLs. METHODS: After systematic searches of published and electronic resources dated between 1999 and 2007, 26 DM GLs, published in English, were selected and scored for methodological quality using the AGREE Instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the source, scope, length, origin, and date and type of publication of GLs. Using a checklist, we collected laboratory-specific items within GLs thought to be important for interpretation of test results. RESULTS: The 26 diagnostic GLs had significant short-comings in methodological quality according to the AGREE criteria. GLs from agencies that had clear procedures for GL development, were longer than 50 pages, or were published in electronic databases were of higher quality. Diagnostic GLs contained more preanalytical or analytical information than combined (i.e., diagnostic and therapeutic) recommendations, but the overall quality was not significantly different. The quality of GLs did not show much improvement over the time period investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological shortcomings of diagnostic GLs in DM raise questions regarding the validity of recommendations in these documents that may affect their implementation in practice. Our results suggest the need for standardization of GL terminology and for higher-quality, systematically developed recommendations based on explicit guideline development and reporting standards in laboratory medicine.

AB - BACKGROUND: Although the methodological quality of therapeutic guidelines (GLs) has been criticized, little is known regarding the quality of GLs that make diagnostic recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the methodological quality of GLs providing diagnostic recommendations for managing diabetes mellitus (DM) and explored several reasons for differences in quality across these GLs. METHODS: After systematic searches of published and electronic resources dated between 1999 and 2007, 26 DM GLs, published in English, were selected and scored for methodological quality using the AGREE Instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the source, scope, length, origin, and date and type of publication of GLs. Using a checklist, we collected laboratory-specific items within GLs thought to be important for interpretation of test results. RESULTS: The 26 diagnostic GLs had significant short-comings in methodological quality according to the AGREE criteria. GLs from agencies that had clear procedures for GL development, were longer than 50 pages, or were published in electronic databases were of higher quality. Diagnostic GLs contained more preanalytical or analytical information than combined (i.e., diagnostic and therapeutic) recommendations, but the overall quality was not significantly different. The quality of GLs did not show much improvement over the time period investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological shortcomings of diagnostic GLs in DM raise questions regarding the validity of recommendations in these documents that may affect their implementation in practice. Our results suggest the need for standardization of GL terminology and for higher-quality, systematically developed recommendations based on explicit guideline development and reporting standards in laboratory medicine.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55349100867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55349100867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1373/clinchem.2008.109082

DO - 10.1373/clinchem.2008.109082

M3 - Article

C2 - 18772309

AN - SCOPUS:55349100867

VL - 54

SP - 1872

EP - 1882

JO - Clinical Chemistry

JF - Clinical Chemistry

SN - 0009-9147

IS - 11

ER -