Quality_of_Venous_Disease_Guidelines
Description
Database Description: A Comparative Analysis of the European and American Venous Disease Guidelines Using AGREE II This dataset contains the expert appraisal of the 2022 European Society of Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) venous disease guidelines, evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The study aimed to assess and compare the quality of these guidelines, focusing on methodological rigor and transparency. Dataset Structure The database is organized into three sheets: Domain: Contains AGREE II domain scores, including raw and normalized values for six domains: Scope and Purpose Stakeholder Involvement Rigor of Development Clarity of Presentation Applicability Editorial Independence Total AGREE II scores Questions: Includes reviewer scores for 23 individual AGREE II items, evaluating specific aspects of guideline development and reporting. Raw: Captures metadata on reviewers and responses, including: Demographics: Country, affiliation, and role in vascular surgery. Guideline under study: ESVS or SVS. AGREE II individual question responses (23 items). Usage This dataset enables comparative analysis of vascular surgery guidelines, assessment of guideline quality using AGREE II, and exploration of factors influencing guideline development and adoption.
Files
Steps to reproduce
This study evaluated the methodological quality of the 2022 European Society of Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) venous disease guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. To replicate the study, the following steps should be followed. First, vascular surgeons from Spanish-speaking countries were recruited through professional networks, regional vascular societies, and institutional affiliations. To ensure the expertise of participants, eligibility criteria required that reviewers met at least one of the following conditions: authorship of at least five peer-reviewed publications on venous disease, performance of more than 50 venous disease-related procedures annually, or affiliation with a tertiary care center specializing in vascular surgery. Only participants who agreed to evaluate both guidelines and provided informed consent were included. The evaluation was conducted through an electronic survey, in which participants independently assessed the ESVS and SVS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument, a validated tool for guideline appraisal. The instrument consists of 23 items grouped into six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To ensure data integrity, only complete paired evaluations of both guidelines were considered for analysis. The next step involved calculating domain scores by summing the scores for individual items within each domain and converting them into percentages of the maximum possible score. Based on these scores, each guideline was classified as either "recommended" (>80%), "recommended with modifications" (50–80%), or "not recommended" (<50%). For the statistical analysis, all calculations were performed using R (version 4.4.2). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed to compare the paired scores of the ESVS and SVS guidelines, as this nonparametric test accounts for paired observations without assuming a normal distribution. Additionally, inter-rater reliability was assessed using a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model for absolute agreement, including both single-rater ICC (ICC[2,1]) and average-rater ICC (ICC[2,k]) to evaluate the consistency of assessments across reviewers. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for the comparison of scores and p < 0.001 for the ICC analysis. By following these steps, researchers can replicate the methodology and ensure a standardized evaluation of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.