Guidelines development protocol and findings: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.
Classification
Diabetes-related foot disease
Diabetic foot
Guidelines
Infection
Offloading
Peripheral artery disease
Peripheral neuropathy
Ulcers
Wounds
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Apr 2022
19 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
19
08
2021
accepted:
15
03
2022
entrez:
20
4
2022
pubmed:
21
4
2022
medline:
22
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian disease burden. The 2011 Australian DFD guidelines were outdated. We aimed to develop methodology for systematically adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD. We followed the Australian National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines for adapting guidelines. We systematically searched for all international DFD guideline records. All identified records were independently screened and assessed for eligibility. Those deemed eligible were further assessed and included if scoring at least moderate quality, suitability and currency using AGREE II and NHMRC instruments. The included international guidelines had all recommendations extracted into six sub-fields: prevention, wound classification, peripheral artery disease, infection, offloading and wound healing. Six national panels, each comprising 6-8 multidisciplinary national experts, screened all recommendations within their sub-field for acceptability and applicability in Australia using an ADAPTE form. Where panels were unsure of any acceptability and applicability items, full assessments were undertaken using a GRADE Evidence to Decision tool. Recommendations were adopted, adapted, or excluded, based on the agreement between the panel's and international guideline's judgements. Each panel drafted a guideline that included all their recommendations, rationale, justifications, and implementation considerations. All underwent public consultation, final revision, and approval by national peak bodies. We screened 182 identified records, assessed 24 full text records, and after further quality, suitability, and currency assessment, one record was deemed a suitable international guideline, the International Working Group Diabetic Foot Guidelines (IWGDF guidelines). The six panels collectively assessed 100 IWGDF recommendations, with 71 being adopted, 27 adapted, and two excluded for the Australian context. We received 47 public consultation responses with > 80% (strongly) agreeing that the guidelines should be approved, and ten national peak bodies endorsed the final six guidelines. The six guidelines and this protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ CONCLUSION: New Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD have been developed for the first time in a decade by adapting suitable international guidelines. The methodology developed for adaptation may be useful for other foot-related conditions. These new guidelines will now serve as the national multidisciplinary best practice standards of DFD care in Australia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian disease burden. The 2011 Australian DFD guidelines were outdated. We aimed to develop methodology for systematically adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD.
METHODS
METHODS
We followed the Australian National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines for adapting guidelines. We systematically searched for all international DFD guideline records. All identified records were independently screened and assessed for eligibility. Those deemed eligible were further assessed and included if scoring at least moderate quality, suitability and currency using AGREE II and NHMRC instruments. The included international guidelines had all recommendations extracted into six sub-fields: prevention, wound classification, peripheral artery disease, infection, offloading and wound healing. Six national panels, each comprising 6-8 multidisciplinary national experts, screened all recommendations within their sub-field for acceptability and applicability in Australia using an ADAPTE form. Where panels were unsure of any acceptability and applicability items, full assessments were undertaken using a GRADE Evidence to Decision tool. Recommendations were adopted, adapted, or excluded, based on the agreement between the panel's and international guideline's judgements. Each panel drafted a guideline that included all their recommendations, rationale, justifications, and implementation considerations. All underwent public consultation, final revision, and approval by national peak bodies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We screened 182 identified records, assessed 24 full text records, and after further quality, suitability, and currency assessment, one record was deemed a suitable international guideline, the International Working Group Diabetic Foot Guidelines (IWGDF guidelines). The six panels collectively assessed 100 IWGDF recommendations, with 71 being adopted, 27 adapted, and two excluded for the Australian context. We received 47 public consultation responses with > 80% (strongly) agreeing that the guidelines should be approved, and ten national peak bodies endorsed the final six guidelines. The six guidelines and this protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ CONCLUSION: New Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD have been developed for the first time in a decade by adapting suitable international guidelines. The methodology developed for adaptation may be useful for other foot-related conditions. These new guidelines will now serve as the national multidisciplinary best practice standards of DFD care in Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35440052
doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00533-8
pii: 10.1186/s13047-022-00533-8
pmc: PMC9017044
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;81:101-110
pubmed: 27713072
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3269
pubmed: 32176451
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015 May;108(2):280-7
pubmed: 25765667
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3283
pubmed: 32176450
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2015 Dec 18;14:152
pubmed: 26684912
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jun;28(6):476-485
pubmed: 30463885
J Foot Ankle Res. 2022 May 5;15(1):31
pubmed: 35513821
BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016
pubmed: 27353417
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):719-25
pubmed: 23312392
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6
pubmed: 21208779
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3268
pubmed: 31943705
Med J Aust. 2018 Sep 1;209(7):288-290
pubmed: 30257626
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019 Feb;35(2):e3101
pubmed: 30468566
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3267
pubmed: 31916377
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3266
pubmed: 32176447
Diabetes Care. 2020 May;43(5):964-974
pubmed: 32139380
J Foot Ankle Res. 2022 May 25;15(1):40
pubmed: 35610723
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
J Foot Ankle Res. 2021 Dec 3;14(1):60
pubmed: 34861898
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 22;10(6):e0130609
pubmed: 26098890
J Foot Ankle Res. 2021 Jan 19;14(1):8
pubmed: 33468226
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:89-98
pubmed: 26931285
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Sep;4(9):781-788
pubmed: 27177729
BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089
pubmed: 27365494
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3273
pubmed: 32176445
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3280
pubmed: 32176444
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):726-35
pubmed: 23570745
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3276
pubmed: 31958217
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3274
pubmed: 32176441