ArticleEye (London, England)2020
An evidence map of clinical practice guideline recommendations and quality on diabetic retinopathy.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia: evidence mapping of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Knowledge gaps in diabetes research: an evidence mapping of the literature.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2022Review
- Evidence Mapping of 23 Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Combined With Western Medicine Approaches for COVID-19.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To present an evidence map for explicating research trends and gaps, we systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on diabetic retinopathy (DR) and assess the quality of CPGs and consistency of recommendations. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CPG databases, and website of diabetes society to include the CPGs. The basic information, methodological quality, and reporting quality of CPGs, recommendations for DR were exacted by the Excel 2013. Methodological and reporting quality of DR CPGs were evaluated by AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. The bubble plot format of evidence map was made by Excel 2013. Nineteen CPGs proved eligible, which included eight DR CPGs and 11 comprehensive diabetic CPGs. The identified CPGs were of mixed quality and they scored poorly in the rigor of development, applicability domains by AGREE II. Field two (background) had the highest reporting rate (86.31%) and field five (review and quality assurance) obtained the lowest reporting rate (31.58%) among the seven domains of RIGHT checklist. According to the recommendations of CPGs, there were three inconsistencies in the screening of DR, and CPGs recommendations for treatment were consistent on the whole. At the same time, recommendations for laser therapy were not accurate. Some recommendations were not specific and clear in some DR CPGs. This evidence map could collect and evaluate the characteristics of published CPGs, add to our knowledge and promote the development of trustworthy CPGs for DR.
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.