We commend Tan et al. on their assessment of diabetic foot guidelines.
1
They provide a thorough analysis of most of the available guidelines, and thoughts on how to improve future guidelines.As the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) editorial board, we were particularly interested in this independent analysis of our five guidelines on key aspects of diabetic foot disease. Our first guidelines were published in 1999, and we have updated and expanded them every four years since. With each update, we aim to improve the content and methodological rigour. We were pleased to see our efforts rewarded with high overall scores.
1
Unfortunately, Tan et al. did not assess our most recent guidelines. They searched the literature, including institutional websites, up to 31 May 2019, but apparently missed our 2019 updates, which were published online (www.iwgdfguidelines.org) and presented (at the International Symposium on the Diabetic Foot) on 25 May 2019.
In these updated guidelines,
2
we specifically aimed to improve on Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) domains 3 (rigour of development) and 6 (editorial independence). This included being more explicit in considerations underlying recommendations, clarifying and broadening external reviews, and posting extensive conflict of interest statements on our public website. Indeed, independent assessment by the ECRI Guidelines Trust (https://guidelines.ecri.org/) shows higher scores on these items than in our previous guidelines. We think readers would be interested to know of this update to the IWGDF guidelines.The process of developing our 2023 updates is already underway. To continue improving our guidelines, we will take on board the assessments by Tan et al.
1
References
- A methodological assessment of diabetic foot syndrome clinical practice guidelines.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020; 60: 274-281
- Standards for the development and methodology of the 2019 international working Group on the diabetic foot guidelines.Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020; 36: e3267
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 20, 2020
Accepted:
August 3,
2020
Received:
July 20,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V.
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- A Methodological Assessment of Diabetic Foot Syndrome Clinical Practice GuidelinesEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 60Issue 2
- PreviewDiabetic foot syndrome (DFS) contributes to significant morbidity in diabetic patients. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to DFS may be summarised in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to aid clinical practice but may only benefit patients if the CPG is of high quality. This study determines the methodological quality of DFS CPGs using a validated assessment tool to identify CPGs adequate for use in clinical practice.
- Full-Text
- Preview
Related Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
