SynthesisPloS one2019
The quality of guidelines for diabetic foot ulcers: A critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical practice guidelines for the nutrition of colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Scope, quality and inclusivity of international clinical guidelines on mental health and substance abuse in relation to dual diagnosis, social and community outcomes: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Identification and Management of Frailty.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2021Pooled it
- Best Practice Guideline Development Methods: An Integrated Approach Based on the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario's Methods.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- A scientometrics analysis and visualisation of diabetic foot research from 1955 to 2022.International wound journal · 2023Article
- The quality of guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease: a critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.