Systematic review of the appropriateness of eye care delivery in eye care practice.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems are continually being reformed, however care improvement and intervention effectiveness are often assumed, not measured. This paper aimed to review findings from published studies about the appropriateness of eye care delivery, using existing published evidence and/or experts' practice and to describe the methods used to measure appropriateness of eye care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL (2006 to September 2016). Studies reporting the processes of eye care delivery against existing published evidence and/or experts' practice were selected. Data was extracted from published reports and the methodological quality using a modified critical appraisal tool. The primary outcomes were percentage of appropriateness of eye care delivery. This study was registered with PROSPERO, reference CRD42016049974. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies were included. Most studies assessed glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy and the overall methodological quality for most studies was moderate. The ranges of appropriateness of care delivery were 2-100% for glaucoma, 0-100% for diabetic retinopathy and 0-100% for other miscellaneous conditions. Published studies assessed a single ocular condition, a sample from a single centre or a single domain of care, but no study has attempted to measure the overall appropriateness of eye care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated a wide range of appropriateness of eye care delivery, for glaucoma and diabetic eye care. Future research would benefit from a comprehensive approach where appropriateness of eye care is measured across multiple conditions with a single methodology, to guide priorities within eye care delivery and monitor quality improvement initiatives.

Systematic review of diabetic eye disease practice guidelines: more applicability, transparency and development rigor are needed.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic search of diabetic eye disease guidelines was conducted on six online databases and guideline repositories. Four reviewers independently rated quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Aggregate scores (%) for six domains and overall quality assessment were calculated. A "good quality" guideline was one with ≥60% score for "rigor of development" and in at least two other domains. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were evidence-based guidelines (involved systematic search and grading of evidence). The median scores (interquartile range (IQR)) for "scope and purpose," "stakeholder involvement," "rigor of development," "clarity of presentation," "applicability" and "editorial independence" were 73.6% (54.2%-80.6%), 48.6% (29.2%-71.5%), 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), 86.6% (76.7%-94.4%), 28.6% (18.0%-37.8%) and 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), respectively. The median overall score (out of 7) of all guidelines was 5.1 (IQR: 3.7-5.8). Evidence-based guidelines scored significantly higher compared to expert-consensus guidelines. Half (n = 9) of the guidelines (all evidence-based) were of "good quality." CONCLUSION: A wide variation in methodological quality exists among diabetic eyecare guidelines, with nine demonstrating "good quality." Future iterations of guidelines could improve by appropriately engaging stakeholders, following a rigorous development process, including support for application in clinical practice and ensuring editorial transparency.