Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries

M.A. Stone; J.C. Wilkinson; G. Charpentier; N. Clochard; G. Grassi; U. Lindblad; U.A. Müller; J. Nolan; G.E.H.M. Rutten; K.J. Gorter; x Guidance Study Group; K. Khunti

doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries

M.A. Stone, J.C. Wilkinson, G. Charpentier, N. Clochard, G. Grassi, U. Lindblad, U.A. Müller, J. Nolan, G.E.H.M. Rutten, K.J. Gorter, x Guidance Study Group, K. Khunti

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Methods
The most recent nationally recognised guidelines for type 2 diabetes from eight European countries (Belgium, England/Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) were compared. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used for quality assessment. Details of recommendations for key process and outcome indicators were also extracted. Appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers.

Results
AGREE domain scores varied between guidelines, including a range of 31–95% for rigour of development. The highest mean domain scores were for Scope and Purpose (81%) and Clarity and Presentation (85%); the lowest was for Stakeholder Involvement (49%). Specific recommendations, including targets relating to intermediate outcomes, were broadly similar. However, at detailed level, there were variations, particularly in terms of the level of information provided, for example, only two countries’ guidelines provided cut-off points in relation to risk associated with waist circumference.

Implications
Our findings suggest that there are some areas of good practice relating to guideline development where more attention is needed. Despite a substantial degree of consensus for specified targets, observed differences at detailed level suggest a lack of consistency in relation to some aspects of the information provided to clinicians across Europe.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	258-263
Number of pages	6
Journal	Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Volume	33
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020
Publication status	Published - 2010

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes
Guidelines
Europe

Access to Document

10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

Cite this

Stone, M. A., Wilkinson, J. C., Charpentier, G., Clochard, N., Grassi, G., Lindblad, U., Müller, U. A., Nolan, J., Rutten, G. E. H. M., Gorter, K. J., Guidance Study Group, X., & Khunti, K. (2010). Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 33(2), 258-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

@article{1ac8d52fc9fd4414b7188d8db2b45689,

title = "Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries",

abstract = "MethodsThe most recent nationally recognised guidelines for type 2 diabetes from eight European countries (Belgium, England/Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) were compared. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used for quality assessment. Details of recommendations for key process and outcome indicators were also extracted. Appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers.ResultsAGREE domain scores varied between guidelines, including a range of 31–95% for rigour of development. The highest mean domain scores were for Scope and Purpose (81%) and Clarity and Presentation (85%); the lowest was for Stakeholder Involvement (49%). Specific recommendations, including targets relating to intermediate outcomes, were broadly similar. However, at detailed level, there were variations, particularly in terms of the level of information provided, for example, only two countries{\textquoteright} guidelines provided cut-off points in relation to risk associated with waist circumference.ImplicationsOur findings suggest that there are some areas of good practice relating to guideline development where more attention is needed. Despite a substantial degree of consensus for specified targets, observed differences at detailed level suggest a lack of consistency in relation to some aspects of the information provided to clinicians across Europe.",

keywords = "Type 2 diabetes, Guidelines, Europe",

author = "M.A. Stone and J.C. Wilkinson and G. Charpentier and N. Clochard and G. Grassi and U. Lindblad and U.A. M{\"u}ller and J. Nolan and G.E.H.M. Rutten and K.J. Gorter and {Guidance Study Group}, x and K. Khunti",

year = "2010",

doi = "10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

pages = "258--263",

journal = "Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice",

issn = "0168-8227",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

number = "2",

}

Stone, MA, Wilkinson, JC, Charpentier, G, Clochard, N, Grassi, G, Lindblad, U, Müller, UA, Nolan, J, Rutten, GEHM, Gorter, KJ, Guidance Study Group, X & Khunti, K 2010, 'Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries', Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 258-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries

AU - Stone, M.A.

AU - Wilkinson, J.C.

AU - Charpentier, G.

AU - Clochard, N.

AU - Grassi, G.

AU - Lindblad, U.

AU - Müller, U.A.

AU - Nolan, J.

AU - Rutten, G.E.H.M.

AU - Gorter, K.J.

AU - Guidance Study Group, x

AU - Khunti, K.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - MethodsThe most recent nationally recognised guidelines for type 2 diabetes from eight European countries (Belgium, England/Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) were compared. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used for quality assessment. Details of recommendations for key process and outcome indicators were also extracted. Appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers.ResultsAGREE domain scores varied between guidelines, including a range of 31–95% for rigour of development. The highest mean domain scores were for Scope and Purpose (81%) and Clarity and Presentation (85%); the lowest was for Stakeholder Involvement (49%). Specific recommendations, including targets relating to intermediate outcomes, were broadly similar. However, at detailed level, there were variations, particularly in terms of the level of information provided, for example, only two countries’ guidelines provided cut-off points in relation to risk associated with waist circumference.ImplicationsOur findings suggest that there are some areas of good practice relating to guideline development where more attention is needed. Despite a substantial degree of consensus for specified targets, observed differences at detailed level suggest a lack of consistency in relation to some aspects of the information provided to clinicians across Europe.

AB - MethodsThe most recent nationally recognised guidelines for type 2 diabetes from eight European countries (Belgium, England/Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) were compared. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used for quality assessment. Details of recommendations for key process and outcome indicators were also extracted. Appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers.ResultsAGREE domain scores varied between guidelines, including a range of 31–95% for rigour of development. The highest mean domain scores were for Scope and Purpose (81%) and Clarity and Presentation (85%); the lowest was for Stakeholder Involvement (49%). Specific recommendations, including targets relating to intermediate outcomes, were broadly similar. However, at detailed level, there were variations, particularly in terms of the level of information provided, for example, only two countries’ guidelines provided cut-off points in relation to risk associated with waist circumference.ImplicationsOur findings suggest that there are some areas of good practice relating to guideline development where more attention is needed. Despite a substantial degree of consensus for specified targets, observed differences at detailed level suggest a lack of consistency in relation to some aspects of the information provided to clinicians across Europe.

KW - Type 2 diabetes

KW - Guidelines

KW - Europe

U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020

M3 - Article

SN - 0168-8227

VL - 33

SP - 258

EP - 263

JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

IS - 2

ER -