Recommendation Map for Type 2 Diabetes: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

ABSTRACT Introduction The global burden of type 2 diabetes, emergence of numerous new therapeutics and rapidly evolving evidence calls for trustworthy and current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This living systematic review of national and international CPGs aims to iteratively summarize recommendations for the management of type 2 diabetes. Method and Analysis We will search electronic databases, professional academic association websites and guideline repositories from 2010 to April 1 2024 for national, international, or professional society CPGs addressing the management of type 2 diabetes. Our initial search will be followed by quarterly literature searches. Paired reviewers will independently assess the quality of identified CPGs using AGREE‐II. Recommendations and their associated methodological quality will be summarized and made available via a user‐friendly interactive online platform. Discussion This living systematic review of CPGs will enable clinicians, patients and system‐level decision‐makers to inform their decision‐making based on internationally available CPGs. It will also allow methodologists to identify gaps in evidence and recommendations to inform future directions in research and CPGs development. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023466448 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ). Summary This study presents a protocol for a living systematic review that will continuously and iteratively synthesize and evaluate clinical practice guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes, with quarterly updates. This study will evaluate the methodological rigor and recommendation consistency of existing type 2 diabetes guidelines, with the aim of identifying potential gaps and areas for future guideline development and clinical research. The recommendations will ultimately be presented in a user‐friendly, visual recommendation map. To enhance clarity and reproducibility, we have established well‐defined and operationalized criteria for recommendation extraction, explicitly distinguishing between “formal” and “informal” recommendations. These criteria are designed to minimize subjective bias, maximize the inclusion of relevant guidelines and ensure consistency of results throughout the data extraction process.