Scholarlink

Background/objective <p>Ophthalmologists rely on clinical practice guidelines to inform their practice. Not all guidelines, however, are considered trustworthy. For guidelines to be credible and evidence-based, internationally-accepted standards suggest that they must adhere to certain criteria. We aim to identify strengths and limitations of commonly used ophthalmology guidelines and provide insights to develop trustworthy, fit-for-purpose guidelines in the field.</p> Methods <p>We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Trip Database, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (<a href="https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/">https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/</a>) and American Academy of Ophthalmology (<a href="https://www.aao.org/clinical-statements">https://www.aao.org/clinical-statements</a>) websites. From these sources, we will include a purposeful sample 100 guidelines published from 2015 onwards addressing diverse areas in ophthalmology (e.g., cornea, glaucoma, retina, paediatrics, etc.) — forty guidelines from major eye care organisations and sixty from diverse ophthalmology subspecialties and regions. We will appraise each guideline according to the modified National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument.</p> Conclusion <p>By identifying best practices and common pitfalls in existing guidelines, this work will provide a roadmap for creating more robust, transparent, and patient-centred clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

OphthoEvidence report: Protocol for quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月10日

查看全文
  • João Pedro Lima,
  • Nazmul Islam,
  • Hamed Movahed,
  • Domenic Alaimo,
  • Briana Carciumaru,
  • Daisy Sun,
  • Sahara Rosha,
  • Rachel Couban,
  • Sobha Sivaprasad,
  • David H. Steel,
  • Charles C. Wykoff,
  • Dena Zeraatkar,
  • Varun Chaudhary

摘要

Background/objective

Ophthalmologists rely on clinical practice guidelines to inform their practice. Not all guidelines, however, are considered trustworthy. For guidelines to be credible and evidence-based, internationally-accepted standards suggest that they must adhere to certain criteria. We aim to identify strengths and limitations of commonly used ophthalmology guidelines and provide insights to develop trustworthy, fit-for-purpose guidelines in the field.

Methods

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Trip Database, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/) and American Academy of Ophthalmology (https://www.aao.org/clinical-statements) websites. From these sources, we will include a purposeful sample 100 guidelines published from 2015 onwards addressing diverse areas in ophthalmology (e.g., cornea, glaucoma, retina, paediatrics, etc.) — forty guidelines from major eye care organisations and sixty from diverse ophthalmology subspecialties and regions. We will appraise each guideline according to the modified National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument.

Conclusion

By identifying best practices and common pitfalls in existing guidelines, this work will provide a roadmap for creating more robust, transparent, and patient-centred clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology.