Adequacy Between Canadian Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations Compared With International Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Objectives: Although quality of care in the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) has improved with the use of comprehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, disparities between national and international guidelines have been demonstrated in one study conducted inWestern Pacific regions. Although there are challenges of systematic implementation of evidence-based care in some clinical settings, their applications have demonstrated positive outcomes on DFU-associated burdens in many countries. The aim of this study was to review and evaluate 3 Canadian clinical practice guidelines and recommendations (CPGRs) in comparison with the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines. Methods: Extraction of all 85 recommendations from the IWGDF guidelines was performed and 3 independent investigators used a rating recommendations adequacy method with descriptive statistics. The Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used for quality appraisal, and reliability scores were noted using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The Wounds Canada CPGR had the higher adequacy with the IWGDF guidelines. However, its development method was poor to fair. The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario CPGR was superior for its development and implementation strategies, but major gaps were found in all chapters. The Diabetes Canada CPGR obtained a good quality appraisal evaluation, but was not dedicated exclusively to DFU and some important recommendations were absent. Reliability scores of AGREE II were good between investigators (p<0.0001). Some disparities were noted between Canadian and international recommendations. Conclusions: Some disparities were noted, future orientations for development should include various health-care professionals involved in the team approach, patient-oriented research, recommendations published along with their level of evidence and strength of recommendations (such as with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system) and implementation strategies to enhance evidence-based practice in Canada. (C) 2021 Canadian Diabetes Association.