|
Domain
|
Key Item
|
Score
|
Comments
|
|
1. Scope and Purpose
|
1.
|
7
|
The overall objectives of the guideline are specifically described. *Page S1
|
|
|
2.
|
7
|
The guideline clearly describes the target population, intervention to exposure, and outcomes. Page S13
|
|
|
3.
|
7
|
Target populations are clearly and specifically identified.
|
|
2. Stakeholder Involvement
|
4.
|
7
|
In Professional Practice Committee Doc, participants and demographics identified and identifiable
Page S184-S186
|
|
|
5.
|
3
|
No real description of how information gathered by interested parties was used in formulating guidelines
|
|
|
6.
|
5
|
Guideline states that it is intended to be used by wide variety but does not describe explicitly how some parties would
|
|
3. Rigour of Development
|
7.
|
5
|
In PPC doc, database and time period searched, but no description of word terms used or search strategy. Full search strategy not included.
|
|
|
8.
|
6
|
Inclusion criteria, study designs (found in the grading system of evidence) were provided. Outcomes more vague *Page S2
|
|
|
9.
|
5
|
Descriptions on body of evidence described in grading system with recommendations based on high quality evidence; no real discussion of bias evaluation/interpretation. Consistency and direction of results across studies not shown.
|
|
|
10.
|
3
|
No real description of specific method used to determine final decisions among practice committee; evidence table provided with sources
|
|
|
11.
|
7
|
Good discussion of risks/benefits of different diagnostic tests and cut offs
|
|
|
12.
|
6
|
Citations for each recommendation easily identified. Evidence tables not linked with each recommendation.
|
|
|
13.
|
2
|
Externally reviewed but no additional info on how that review influenced the guidelines. Page S2, “A scientific review is not an ADA position and does not contain clinical practice recommendations but is produced under the auspices of the Association by invited experts.”
|
|
|
14.
|
7
|
Explicit statement provided regarding the updating of guidelines. *Page S1
|
|
4. Clarity of Presentation
|
15.
|
7
|
Recommendations are very clear, from intent to caveats
|
|
|
16.
|
7
|
Different options for diagnosis and classifications very clearly described
|
|
|
17.
|
7
|
Key recs are provided in table form; very easy to read, understand, and determine source of recommendation
|
|
5. Applicability
|
18.
|
5
|
Barriers considered clearly identified; no specific “fix” for community-based screenings provided
|
|
|
19.
|
7
|
Guideline provides check list and algorithms for diagnosis; provides a web-based app to assist practitioners
|
|
|
20.
|
5
|
Much discussion of cost of testing; no specific info regarding where those costs were derived. No information on how cost implications guided development process and formulation of recommendations
|
|
|
21.
|
7
|
Guideline prescribes when to screen for diabetes in different populations; diagnostic criteria
|
|
6. Editorial Independence
|
22.
|
6
|
Explicit statements regarding the funding are made, but no express statement regarding views of funding body not influencing final recs
|
|
|
23.
|
3
|
Competing interests of guideline development team is provided in separate document. No description of competing interests given. No methods by which competing interest were sought given. No description of how the competing interest influenced guideline process and recommendations given.
|
Sparkle30
practiceguidelineagreeIIscoring.docx
0
