Diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: a clinical practice guideline appraisal using AGREE II instrument

Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II. Design Methodological evaluation. A cross-cultural adaptation framework was followed to translate and develop a standardised Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II. Setting Palestinian Primary Healthcare Centres. Participants Sixteen appraisers independently evaluated the Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II. Main outcome measures Methodological quality of diabetic guideline. Results The Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II showed an acceptable reliability and validity. Internal consistency ranged between 0.67 and 0.88 (Cronbach’s α). Intra-class coefficient among appraisers ranged between 0.56 and 0.88. The quality of this guideline is low. Both domains ‘Scope and Purpose’ and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ had the highest quality scores (66.7% and 61.5%, respectively), whereas the scores for ‘Applicability’, ‘Stakeholder Involvement’, ‘Rigour of Development’ and ‘Editorial Independence’ were the lowest (27%, 35%, 36.5%, and 40%, respectively). Conclusions The findings suggest that the quality of this Clinical Practice Guideline is disappointingly low. To improve the quality of current and future guidelines, the AGREE II instrument is extremely recommended to be incorporated as a gold standard for developing, evaluating or updating the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guidelines. Future guidelines can be improved by setting specific strategies to overcome implementation barriers with respect to economic considerations, engaging of all relevant end-users and patients, ensuring a rigorous methodology for searching, selecting and synthesising the evidences and recommendations, and addressing potential conflict of interests within the development group.

Download Full-text

Engaging target users to appraise and refine clinical practice guidelines in pediatric concussion: An integrated knowledge translation approach

Journal of Concussion ◽

10.1177/20597002211017405 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 205970022110174

Author(s):

Melissa Paniccia ◽

Christine Provvidenza ◽

Shauna Kingsnorth ◽

Christina Ippolito ◽

Roger Zemek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Knowledge Translation ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Clinical Practice Guideline ◽

Practice Guideline ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Agree Ii ◽

Allied Health Professionals ◽

Pediatric Concussion

Background Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that assist clinicians in making evidence informed decisions regarding patient care. Within pediatric concussion, the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation released the Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Pediatric Concussion in 2014. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2014 guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) evaluation tool, in addition to a brief knowledge translation survey, and to utilize the collected feedback from end users to inform improvements to support an updated version. An integrated knowledge translation approach was employed using clinical experts as guideline appraisers. Methods A purposive sample of researchers, physicians, allied health professionals, policy makers, educators and knowledge translation experts involved in updating the guidelines (N = 31) completed the AGREE II Likert scale survey regarding the 2014 guideline, and provided written justifications for their ratings. Domain and item AGREE II scaled scores were reported stratified by demographic factors, and written justifications were synthesized using content analysis to determine areas of improvement for the 2014 guideline. Results Appraisers scored the editorial independence (88.9%) and scope and purpose (80.8%) domains the highest, indicating high quality. The guidelines scored the lowest in the applicability domain (69.3%). Participants with less than 10 years of experience in their respective disciplines, as well as physicians and allied health professionals consistently provided higher ratings across domains compared to other professions. Conclusions The process of evaluating the 2014 guideline resulted in these important outcomes: (1) identified areas of the guideline that may have affected the lack of previous clinical uptake while abiding by a clinical practice guideline development framework; (2) shared and informed decision making regarding content and format of the revised clinical practice guideline; and (3) targeted content, clinical questions and dissemination strategies, which are key to clinical uptake.

Download Full-text