scholarly journals The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosuke Hatakeyama ◽  
Kanako Seto ◽  
Rebeka Amin ◽  
Takefumi Kitazawa ◽  
Shigeru Fujita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Domain 3 ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Background The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II has been widely used to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). While the relationship between the overall assessment of CPGs and scores of six domains were reported in previous studies, the relationship between items constituting these domains and the overall assessment has not been analyzed. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the score of each item and the overall assessment and identify items that could influence the overall assessment. Methods All Japanese CPGs developed using the evidence-based medicine method and published from 2011 to 2015 were used. They were independently evaluated by three appraisers using AGREE II. The evaluation results were analyzed using regression analysis to evaluate the influence of 6 domains and 23 items on the overall assessment. Results A total of 206 CPGs were obtained. All domains and all items except one were significantly correlated to the overall assessment. Regression analysis revealed that Domain 3 (Rigour of Development), Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation), Domain 5 (Applicability), and Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had influence on the overall assessment. Additionally, four items of AGREE II, clear selection of evidence (Item 8), specific/unambiguous recommendations (Item 15), advice/tools for implementing recommendations (Item 19), and conflicts of interest (Item 22), significantly influenced the overall assessment and explained 72.1% of the variance. Conclusions These four items may highlight the areas for improvement in developing CPGs.

scholarly journals Updates to and quality of clinical practice guidelines for high-priority diseases in Japan

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. G139-G145
Author(s):  
Sho Sasaki ◽  
Haruki Imura ◽  
Kyoko Sakai ◽  
Yoshihito Goto ◽  
Kyoko Kitazawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Domain 3 ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument ◽  
Domain Scores

Abstract Purpose To examine the update status of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for 24 main diseases in Japan, and to clarify the quality of and issues pertaining to the most recent versions of CPGs for each disease. Data sources CPGs were searched in two Japanese guideline databases. Study selection All relevant Japanese CPGs published between January 1999 and July 2016 were selected. Data extraction The developer and issue date were extracted for all target CPGs. The most recent CPGs were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation—II (AGREE II) instrument. Results of data synthesis Among 106 target CPGs, 24 most recent CPGs were subjected to assessment using the AGREE II instrument. CPGs for 11 diseases (46%) had a mean time interval for update of ≥5 years. Among the 24 CPGs subjected to AGREE II assessment, median domain scores were 74% for “Domain 1: Scope and Purpose,” 43% for “Domain 2: Stakeholder Involvement,” 46% for “Domain 3: Rigor of Development,” 69% for “Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation,” 24% for “Domain 5: Applicability” and 27% for “Domain 6: Editorial Independence.” Conclusions The systematic assessment of CPGs for 24 major diseases in Japan revealed a trend for a delay in timing of update for many CPGs. Moreover, the 24 most recent CPGs had low domain scores for domains 2, 3, 5 and 6. In the future, concrete measures will need to be considered in order to improve the quality of CPGs.

scholarly journals Antenatal magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection: a critical appraisal and systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pradeep M. Jayaram ◽  
Manoj K. Mohan ◽  
Ibrahim Farid ◽  
Stephen Lindow
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Fetal Neuroprotection ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

Abstract Background Magnesium sulfate is an accepted intervention for fetal neuroprotection. There are some perceived differences in the international recommendations on the use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection in preterm labor. Content This systematic review analyses the available clinical guidelines for the use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection and compares the recommendations, and assesses the quality of guidelines. This provides the consensus, differences and explores the areas for future collaborative research. We searched databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, Web of Science, LILACS; and included the national and the international clinical practice guidelines. We included seven guidelines out of 227 search results. We evaluated the methodological quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and systematically extracted guideline characters, recommendation and supporting evidence base. Summary Five guidelines were of high quality and two were of moderate quality. One guideline achieved more than an 80% score in all the domains of AGREE II tool. All guidelines recommend use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection. However, there are differences in other recommendations such as upper gestational age, dose, duration, repeating treatment and use of additional tocolytics. Outlook Future guidelines should include recommendations on all aspects of magnesium sulfate therapy for fetal neuroprotection. Future research and international collaboration should focus on areas where there are no international consensual recommendations.

scholarly journals Assessment of the methodological quality of local clinical practice guidelines on the identification and management of gestational diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e027285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Daley ◽  
Graham Hitman ◽  
Norman Fenton ◽  
Scott McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Agree Ii

ObjectiveGestational diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, and it is important that well-written clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the methodological quality of hospital-based CPGs on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.DesignWe conducted an assessment of local clinical guidelines in English for gestational diabetes using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) to assess and validate methodological quality.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe sought a representative selection of local CPGs accessible by the internet. Criteria for inclusion were (1) identified as a guideline, (2) written in English, (3) produced by or for the hospital in a Western country, (4) included diagnostic criteria and recommendations concerning gestational diabetes, (5) grounded on evidence-based medicine and (6) accessible over the internet. No more than two CPGs were selected from any single country.ResultsOf the 56 CPGs identified, 7 were evaluated in detail by five reviewers using the standard AGREE II instrument. Interrater variance was calculated, with strong agreement observed for those protocols considered by reviewers as the highest and lowest scoring based on the instrument. CPG results for each of the six AGREE II domains are presented categorically using a 5-point Likert scale. Only one CPG scored above average in five or more of the domains. Overall scores ranged from 91.6 (the strongest) to 50 (the weakest). Significant variation existed in the methodological quality of CPGs, even though they followed the guideline of an advising body. Specifically, appropriate identification of the evidence relied on to inform clinical decision making in CPGs was poor, as was evidence of user involvement in the development of the guideline, resource implications, documentation of competing interests of the guideline development group and evidence of external review.ConclusionsThe limitations described are important considerations for updating current and new CPGs.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal and comparison of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for treatment of schizophrenia in children and adolescents: a methodological survey protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038646
Author(s):  
Maíra Ramos Alves ◽  
Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi ◽  
Flávia Blaseck Sorrilha ◽  
Izabela Fulone ◽  
Silvio Barberato-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Over Time

IntroductionThe number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have increased substantially mainly in the paediatric area of mental health. However, little is known about the quality or how recommendations for the treatment of disorders such as schizophrenia in children and adolescents have changed over time. The aim of this study will be to assess the quality of the development of CPGs for the treatment and management of schizophrenia in children and adolescents over time using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and to compare the recommendations and interventions described in these documents.Methods and analysisCPGs will be identified using a prospective protocol through a systematic search of multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, etc) and guideline websites from 2004 to December 2020. The quality of the guidelines will be assessed by three reviewers, independently using the AGREE II. CPGs will be considered of high-quality if they scored ≥60% in four or more domains of the AGREE II instrument. Non-parametric tests will be used to test for the change of quality over time. We will summarise the different evidence grading systems and compare the recommendations.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since it is a literature-based study. Future results of the research can be submitted for publication in scientific journals of high impact, peer reviewed and also published in national and international conferences. The results derived from this study will contribute to the improvement of health institutions and policies, informing about existing recommendation guidelines and about deficiencies and qualities found in those. This study may also identify key areas for future research. This study may guide the search and choice for high quality CPGs by health policy makers and health professionals and subsidise future adaptations.Protocol registration numberCRD42020164899.

scholarly journals Protocol of an interdisciplinary consensus project aiming to develop an AGREE II extension for guidelines in surgery

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e037107
Author(s):  
George A Antoniou ◽  
Dimitris Mavridis ◽  
Sofia Tsokani ◽  
Manuel López-Cano ◽  
Iván D Flórez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Professional Staff ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Agree Ii

IntroductionAppraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) is an instrument that informs development, reporting and assessment of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has demonstrated the need for improvement in methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines specifically in surgery. We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension document for application in surgical guidelines.Methods and analysisWe have performed a structured literature review and assessment of guidelines in surgery using the AGREE II instrument. In exploratory analyses, we have identified factors associated with guideline quality. We have performed reliability and factor analyses to inform the development of an extension document. We will summarise this information and present it to a Delphi panel of stakeholders. We will perform iterative Delphi rounds and we will summarise the final results to develop the extension instrument in a dedicated consensus conference.Ethics and disseminationFunding bodies will not be involved in the development of the instrument. Research ethics committee and Health Research Authority approval was waived, since this is a professional staff study only and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by reassigning functions or replacing participants with relevant conflicts. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer reviewed journals, the funders’ websites, social media and direct contact with guideline development organisations and peer-reviewed journals that publish guidelines.

Using AGREE II to evaluate the quality of traditional medicine clinical practice guidelines in China

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Deng ◽  
Le Li ◽  
Zixia Wang ◽  
Xiaonan Chang ◽  
Rui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Agree Ii

scholarly journals An appraisal of the Australian Resuscitation Council arrhythmia guideline

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter F Fouche ◽  
Kristina Zverinova
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Guideline ◽  
Significant Health ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

IntroductionArrhythmias are a significant health burden in Australia, responsible for about 1% of deaths annually. The Australian Resuscitation Council (ARC) ‘Guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias’ was designed to guide doctors, paramedics and nurses in the emergency management of arrhythmias. It is important to have high quality clinical practice guidelines to aid the treatment of these arrhythmias. The AGREE II tool utilised is widely used to asses clinical practice guidelines for quality. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the ARC clinical practice guideline ‘Guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias’.MethodsTwo raters assessed the six domains of quality of the ARC arrhythmia guideline using the AGREE II tool. The inter-rater agreement between the raters was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2, 1).ResultsInter-rater agreement was good at 0.73 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Both raters assigned the ARC guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias a score of three, for a combined score of three out of a possible seven on the AGREE II rating scale.ConclusionsThe use of the ARC guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias is not recommended based on this assessment with the AGREE II tool. Emergency departments and prehospital systems should consider not using this arrhythmia guideline to guide their practice, but to look elsewhere for a higher quality guideline.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document