Implementability of stroke guidelines: a pragmatic comparison between US and European recommendations using eGLIA

Due to the prevalence and severity of stroke, and the emergency of its management, the need of reaching a consensus towards its treatment is of prime importance. This paper's aim is to compare two stroke guidelines by using eGLIA in order to evaluate their implementability. Methods included a systematic assessment of the European (ESO) and American (AHA/ASA) guidelines with eGLIA and a review of literature and analysis of each recommendation with the program. The ESO performs better in Executability and Decidability, as 91.5% and 34.8% of recommendations show no barriers, compared to 81.0% and 14.0% in the AHA/ASA guidelines. On the other hand, AHA/ASA guideline have more recommendations with positive assessments in the Validity and Effect on the Process of Care (91.4% vs 83.0% and 58.1% vs 25%). Results show that ESO guidelines address a wider patient view and that the AHA/ASA guidelines are stricter, only publishing recommendations with a high level of evidence; AHA/ASA guidelines are updated with more frequency and have a clearer sequence of action. Both guidelines show some contradictions, but of minor importance. The strength of this study is the fact that the whole guidelines were read and analysed, and, although we would suggest an improvement of the tool by adding an automatic statistics chart and clarifying some questions, it showed that eGLIA should be used whenever such a text is published.