Survey-Based Assessment of the Quality of Reporting Guidelines of Carotid Artery Stenosis

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Urquijo, Mauricio
dc.contributor.authorGomez-Gutierrez, Oliver Antonio
dc.contributor.authorHinojosa-Gonzalez, David E.
dc.contributor.authorReijnen, Michel M. P. J.
dc.contributor.authorvan den Berg, Jos C.
dc.contributor.authorVegas, Diego Herrera
dc.contributor.authorMarine, Leopoldo
dc.contributor.authorLozano-Balderas, Gerardo
dc.contributor.authorFabiani, Mario Alejandro
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T16:11:16Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T16:11:16Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.019
dc.identifier.eissn1615-5947
dc.identifier.issn0890-5096
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.019
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/90261
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:001288275200001
dc.language.isoen
dc.pagina.final436
dc.pagina.inicio426
dc.revistaAnnals of vascular surgery
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleSurvey-Based Assessment of the Quality of Reporting Guidelines of Carotid Artery Stenosis
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen108
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas