Systematic review and appraisal of quality, definitions and treatment recommendations of clinical guidelines for glaucoma suspects

Abstract

BackgroundTo appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines for glaucoma suspects, and to assess their consistency for how a ‘glaucoma suspect’ is defined and their recommendations for treatment initiation for such individuals.MethodsThis study included all documents that self‐identified as a ‘guideline’ and provided recommendation(s) for the clinical care of glaucoma suspects. The quality of eligible guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.ResultsFrom 1196 records retrieved from comprehensive searches and two records manually included, 20 clinical practice guidelines were deemed eligible. Based on an appraisal using the AGREE II instrument, 16 (80%) guidelines had ≤2 domains with scores >66%. Overall, the lowest scoring domains were for applicability, editorial independence and stakeholder involvement. There was relatively poor agreement across the guidelines for what defines a ‘glaucoma suspect’ or ‘primary open angle glaucoma [POAG] suspect’, as well as the recommendations and criteria for treatment initiation in these populations. There was better agreement for the definition and recommendations for treatment initiation for ‘primary angle closure suspects’.ConclusionsThere is substantial room to improve the methodological quality of most current international clinical guidelines for glaucoma suspects. Clinicians should consider this finding when using such guidelines to inform their care of glaucoma suspects. Substantial variation in the definition of a POAG suspect and recommendations for treatment initiation underscores important gaps in the current evidence for the accurate prediction of glaucoma development and treatment effectiveness in these individuals.