Assessment of evidence and quality of clinical practice guidelines on deterioration of skin integrity: ulcers and chronic wounds / Evaluación de las evidencias y calidad de las guías de práctica clínica sobre deterioro de la integridad cutánea: úlceras y heridas crónicas.

Background. The epidemiological, social, and economic situation that surrounds the deterioration of skin integrity is a big problem for the health system. Its prevention and treatment create uncertainty and professional variability and it remains a priority to have good clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The objective was to determine the quality of the CPG on prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PU), venous ulcers of the leg (VUL) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Methodology. Systematic review of the quality of Spanish and international CPG on PU, VUL and DFU. Bibliographic search in specialized sources. Selection of CPG, not older than 5 years (2010-2015). Use of the AGREE Instrument II and revision by 4 experts. Descriptive statistics. Results. Twenty-three CPG (10 PU, 6 VUL and 7 DFU), of which 4 were Spanish and 19 international. Eight CPG on PU, 3 VUL and 5 DFU were considered "Highly Recommended". Domain nº 2 (participation) and Domain nº 5 (applicability) were the worst valued. The quality of the evidence was "very good" in 19 GPC. The best CPG were the British NICE (PU), the Australian AWMA (VUL) and the Canadian RNAO (DFU). Conclusions. We observed a good methodological quality in the CPG on PU and DFU, but there needs to be improvement in the VUL. In general, it would be necessary to increase the participation of users, and describe possible barriers for the implementation of the CPG in clinical practice.

Evaluación de las evidencias y calidad de las guías de práctica clínica sobre deterioro de la integridad cutánea: úlceras y heridas crónicas / Assessment of evidence and quality of clinical practice guidelines on deterioration of skin integrity: ulcers and chronic wounds

Fundamento: La situación epidemiológica, sociosanitaria y económica que rodea al deterioro de la integridad cutánea supone un gran problema para el sistema sanitario. Su prevención y tratamiento crea incertidumbre y variabilidad profesional siendo prioritario contar con buenas Guías de Práctica Clínica (GPC). El objetivo fue conocer la calidad de las GPC sobre prevención y tratamiento de úlceras por presión (UPP), úlceras venosas de la pierna (UVP) y úlceras de pie diabético (UPD). Metodología: Revisión sistemática de la calidad de GPC españolas e internacionales sobre UPP, UVP y UPD. Búsqueda bibliográfica en fuentes especializadas. Selección de GPC con antigüedad no superior a 5 años (2010-2015). Uso del Instrumento AGREE II y revisión por 4 expertos. Estadística descriptiva. Resultados: Veintitrés GPC (10 UPP, 6 UVP y 7 UPD); de ellas, 4 eran españolas y 19 internacionales. Fueron consideradas «muy recomendables» 8 GPC sobre UPP, 3 de UVP y 5 de UPD. El Dominio nº 2 (participación) y el Dominio nº 5 (aplicabilidad) fueron los peor valorados. La calidad de la evidencia fue «muy buena» en 19 GPC. La mejor GPC fue la inglesa de la NICE (UPP), la australiana de la AWMA (UVP) y la canadiense de la RNAO (UPD). Conclusiones: Se observa una buena calidad metodológica en las GPC sobre UPP y UPD, pero habría que mejorar en las UVP. En general, habría que aumentar la participación de los usuarios, y describir las posibles barreras para la implementación de las GPC en la práctica clínica (AU)

Background: The epidemiological, social, and economic situation that surrounds the deterioration of skin integrity is a big problem for the health system. Its prevention and treatment create uncertainty and professional variability and it remains a priority to have good clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The objective was to determine the quality of the CPG on prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PU), venous ulcers of the leg (VUL) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Methodology: Systematic review of the quality of Spanish and international CPG on PU, VUL and DFU. Bibliographic search in specialized sources. Selection of CPG, not older than 5 years (2010-2015). Use of the AGREE Instrument II and revision by 4 experts. Descriptive statistics. Results: Twenty-three CPG (10 PU, 6 VUL and 7 DFU), of which 4 were Spanish and 19 international. Eight CPG on PU, 3 VUL and 5 DFU were considered «Highly Recommended». Domain nº 2 (participation) and Domain nº 5 (applicability) were the worst valued. The quality of the evidence was «very good» in 19 GPC. The best CPG were the British NICE (PU), the Australian AWMA (VUL) and the Canadian RNAO (DFU). Conclusions: We observed a good methodological quality in the CPG on PU and DFU, but there needs to be improvement in the VUL. In general, it would be necessary to increase the participation of users, and describe possible barriers for the implementation of the CPG in clinical practice (AU)