scholarly journals Appraisal of national and international uterine fibroid management guidelines: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Amoah ◽  
Nikhitha Joseph ◽  
Sophie Reap ◽  
Stephen Quinn
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Fibroid ◽  
English Language ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Selection Strategy ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Power Morcellation ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Background Guidelines standardise high-quality evidence-based management strategies for clinicians. Uterine fibroids are a highly prevalent condition and may exert significant morbidity. Objectives The purpose of this study was to appraise national and international uterine fibroid guidelines using the validated AGREE-II instrument. Selection Strategy An electronic database search of PubMed and EMBASE from inception to October 2020 for all published English-language uterine fibroid clinical practice guidelines was undertaken. Data Collection and Analysis 939 abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Three reviewers used the AGREE-II instrument to assess guideline quality in six domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence). Recommendations were mapped to allow a narrative synthesis regarding areas of consensus and disagreement. Main Results Eight national (AAGL, SOGC 2014, ACOG, ACR, SOGC 2019, CNGOF, ASRM, and SOGC 2015) and one international guideline (RANZOG) were appraised. The highest scoring guideline was RANZOG 2001(score 56.5%). None of the guidelines met the a priori criteria for being high-quality overall (score >= 66%). There were 166 recommendations across guidelines. There were several areas of disagreement and uncertainty. Conclusions There is a need for high-quality fibroid guidelines given heterogeneity across individuals and a large range of treatment modalities available. There are also areas of controversy in the management of fibroids (e.g. Ulipristal acetate, power morcellation) which also should be addressed in any guidelines. Future guidelines should be methodologically robust to allow high-quality decision-making regarding fibroid treatments.

scholarly journals The quality of guidelines in non-pharmacological prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy: A review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahin Salarvand ◽  
Simin Hemati ◽  
Payman Adibi ◽  
Fariba Taleghani
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Common Adverse Effect ◽  
Adaptation Process ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Pharmacological Prevention ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is a common adverse effect occurring in patients undergoing neurotoxic chemotherapy. However, there is no FDA-approved treatment option for it. Given the importance of clinical practice guidelines in this area, this study aimed to determine the methodological quality of extant CIPN guidelines. The study was done as part of the adaptation process of CIPN related CPGs at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran. A systematic search of published CPGs about chemotherapy-induced CIPN in which the AGREE II instrument was applied for appraising CPGs of CIPN was performed. In general, amongst all of the AGREE II Instrument’s domains in the evaluated CPGs, the clarity of presentation and stakeholder involvement domains took favorable scores; and other domains obtained unfavorable and relatively favorable scores. The quality of cancer therapy-induced neuropathy CPGs needs to be improved and designing high-quality CPGs must be considered.

scholarly journals Appraisal of the Current Guidelines for Management of Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction Using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II Instrument

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Paschalis Gavriilidis ◽  
Alan Askari ◽  
Nicola de’Angelis ◽  
Efstratios P. Gavriilidis ◽  
James Wheeler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Guideline Development ◽  
Colonic Obstruction ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Guideline Quality ◽  
Domain V ◽  
Domain I ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of death with 1.4 million new cases occurring annually worldwide. High-quality clinical practice guidelines are needed to tailor high-quality individualized treatment. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for the management of acute malignant left-sided colonic bowel obstruction. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was carried out using electronic databases. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used to assess the quality of each guideline. Results: Search results returned a total of 14 guidelines appropriate for assessment. Both domain I (scope and purpose) and domain VI (editorial independence) were assessed with the same median score of 83%. The lowest scoring domain was domain V (applicability), scoring only 43%. The 2 guidelines that had the highest score were the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), each scoring 100%. However, there were significant variations in terms of quality. The NICE and New Zealand guidelines were voted unanimously for use unchanged, whilst 8 other guidelines were voted for use with modifications. Conclusion: Variation in guideline quality in CRC is a concern despite some clearly excellent published guidelines. All guidelines score poorly when it comes to describing how the guidelines could be applied. Lack of patient participation in guideline development is also a shortcoming that requires urgent redress.

scholarly journals Applicability of the AGREE II Instrument in Evaluating the Development Process and Quality of Current National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Guidelines

2012 ◽  
Vol 58 (10) ◽  
pp. 1426-1437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew C Don-Wauchope ◽  
John L Sievenpiper ◽  
Stephen A Hill ◽  
Alfonso Iorio
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Clinical Biochemistry ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Abstract BACKGROUND Laboratory medicine practice guidelines (LMPGs) are an important part of clinical laboratory medicine. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument has been developed to evaluate the process of practice-guideline development and the quality of reporting. We assessed the applicability of AGREE II in assessing the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) LMPGs. METHODS The NACB website was searched for all available LMPGs up to December 2011. Two independent appraisers used the AGREE II instrument to assess each LMPG identified by the search. Quality was assessed across 6 domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence), comprising a total of 23 items and 2 overall assessments, each scored on a 7-point scale (1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree). All scores were expressed as AGREE II calculated percentages (100% indicates that all items scored 7 by all appraisers). RESULTS Eleven LMPGs were identified. All of the LMPGs provided some information seen as applicable to clinical practice by the appraisers. Only 5 of the LMPGs had overall scores ≥50%, with a median score of 42% (range: 8%–92%). Individual domain scores varied considerably from 0% to 100%. One guideline achieved a very high score on the instrument. CONCLUSIONS The AGREE II instrument is applicable and useful to evaluate LMPGs. All domains were evaluated as being useful to assess LMPGs, some were addressed well (e.g., clarity of presentation), whereas others could be improved (e.g., applicability).

scholarly journals Headache and migraine clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review and assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Y. Ng ◽  
Christina Hanna
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Headache Disorder ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Globally, 3 billion people suffer from either migraine or tension-type headache disorder over their lifetime. Approximately 50% of American adults suffering from headache or migraine have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, the quality and quantity of recommendations associated with such therapies across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of these conditions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of such CAM recommendations. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched for eligible CPGs. CPGs were included if they provided any therapy recommendations. Eligible CPGs included those written for adult patients with headache and migraine; CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice for quality using the AGREE II instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Results Of 486 unique search results, 21 CPGs were eligible and quality assessed; fifteen CPGs mentioned CAM, of which 13 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG assessment yielded higher scaled domain percentages than the CAM section across all domains. The results from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM): clarity of presentation (66.7% vs. 50.0%), scope and purpose (63.9% vs. 61.1%), stakeholder involvement (22.2% vs. 13.9%), rigour of development (13.5% vs. 9.4%), applicability (6.3% vs. 0.0%), and editorial independence (0.0% vs. 0.0%). Conclusions Of the eligible CPGs, the CAM sections were of lower quality compared to the overall recommendations across all domains of the AGREE II instrument. CPGs that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CAM therapies in the context of headache and migraine.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanansayan Dhivagaran ◽  
Umaima Abbas ◽  
Fahad Butt ◽  
Luckshann Arunasalam ◽  
Oswin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
World Health ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Abstract Background In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument. Methods The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided. Discussion The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)—CRD42020219944

Appraisal of the current guidelines for the management of diverticular disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument

2021 ◽  
Vol 103 (7) ◽  
pp. 471-477
Author(s):  
P Gavriilidis ◽  
A Askari ◽  
E Gavriilidis ◽  
N de’Angelis ◽  
S Di Saverio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diverticular Disease ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
German Society ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
American Society ◽  
General And Visceral Surgery ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Introduction Diverticular disease is one of the most frequent reasons for attending emergency departments and surgical causes of hospital admission. In the past decade, many surgical and gastroenterological societies have published guidelines for the management of diverticular disease. The aim of the present study was to appraise the methodological quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases were searched systematically. The methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised independently by five appraisers using the AGREE II instrument. Findings A systematic search of the literature identified 12 guidelines. The median overall score of all guidelines was 68%. Across all guidelines, the highest score of 85% was demonstrated in the domain ‘Scope and purpose’. The domains ‘Clarity and presentation’ and ‘Editorial independence’ both scored a median of 72%. The lowest scores were demonstrated in the domains ‘Stakeholder involvement’ and ‘Applicability’ at 46% and 40%, respectively. Overall, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines performed consistently well, scoring 100% in five of six domains; NICE was one of the few guidelines that specifically reported stakeholder involvement, scoring 97%. Generally, the domain of ‘Stakeholder involvement’ ranked poorly with seven of twelve guidelines scoring below 50%, with the worst score in this domain demonstrated by Danish guidelines at 25%. Conclusion Six of twelve guidelines (NICE, American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), American Gastroenterological Association, German Society of Gastroenterology/German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (German), Netherlands Society of Surgery) scored above 70%. Only three, NICE, ASCRS and ESCP, scored above 75% and were voted unanimously by the appraisers for use as they are. Therefore, use of AGREE II may help improve the methodological quality of guidelines and their future updates.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of clinical guidelines for the treatment of obesity in adults: application of the AGREE II instrument

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Cardoso dos Reis ◽  
Sonia Regina Lambert Passos ◽  
Maria Angelica Borges dos Santos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Canadian Guideline ◽  
Government Sector ◽  
The Government ◽  
Treatment Of Obesity ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

There are various guidelines for the treatment of obesity, and thus the quality of these clinical guidelines has become a matter of concern. The objective was to describe and assess the quality of clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults. We collected several studies, dated from 1998 to 2016, produced by different countries. The literature search included the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, webpages of health institutions from different countries, and search sites, with the criterion: “clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults and published until the 2016”. The guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II), according to the domains of the instrument. The search identified 21 guidelines: nine from Europe, six from North America, three from Latin America, and one each from Asia and Oceania and a transnational association. The Australian guideline had the best assessment. Of the six guidelines with the highest scores, five had been elaborated by the government sector responsible for the country’s health. The domains “scope and purpose” and “clarity of presentation” had the highest score. Except for the Canadian guideline, the three guidelines drafted before the elaboration of AGREE II had the worst quality. In the domain “stakeholder involvement”, only four guidelines (Australia, Scotland, France, and England) mentioned patient participation. Guideline development and quality enhancement are ongoing processes requiring systematic appraisal of the guideline production process and existing guidelines.

scholarly journals Towards high-quality, useful practice guidelines for child and youth mental health disorders: protocol for a systematic review and consensus exercise

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Bennett ◽  
Stephanie Duda ◽  
Melissa Brouwers ◽  
Peter Szatmari ◽  
Amanda Newton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Youth Mental Health ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Oppositional Defiant ◽  
Group Methods

IntroductionThe quality of clinical practice guidelines (PGs) has not been evaluated in child and youth mental health (CYMH). To address this gap, we will: (1) conduct a systematic review (SR) to answer the question ‘among eligible PGs relevant to the prevention or treatment of CYMH conditions, which PGs meet criteria for minimum and high quality?’; (2) apply nominal group methods to create recommendations for how CYMH PG quality, completeness and usefulness can be strengthened.Methods and analysisSR: Potentially eligible PGs will be identified in 12 databases using a reproducible search strategy developed by a research librarian. Trained raters will: (1) apply prespecified criteria to identify eligible PGs relevant to depression, anxiety, suicidality, bipolar disorder, behaviour disorder (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder) and substance use disorder; (2) extract descriptive data and (3) assess PG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Scores on three AGREE II domains (rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, editorial independence) will designate PGs as minimum (≥50%) or high quality (≥70%). Nominal group: Four CYMH PG knowledge user groups (clinicians, mental health service planners, youth and adult family members) will participate in structured exercises derived using nominal group methods to generate recommendations to improve PG quality, completeness and usefulness.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Study products will be disseminated as follows. A cross-platform website will house eligible CYMH PGs and their quality ratings. Twitter and Facebook tools will promote it to a wide variety of PG users. Data from Google Analytics, Twitonomy and Altmetrics will inform usage evaluation. Complementary educational workshops will be conducted for CYMH professionals. Print materials and journal articles will be produced.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060738.

scholarly journals Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of COVID-19: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanansayan Dhivagaran ◽  
Umaima Abbas ◽  
Fahad Rasool Butt ◽  
Luckshann Arunasalam ◽  
Oswin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Abstract BackgroundIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for the high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument. Methods‌The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science will be searched from December 2019 up to December 2020. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. DiscussionThe results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Systematic Review ‌Registration‌ ‌International‌ ‌Prospective‌ ‌Register‌ ‌for‌ ‌Systematic‌ ‌Reviews‌ ‌(PROSPERO)‌ ‌—‌ ‌CRD42020219944

scholarly journals Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of female chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using the AGREE II instrument

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishalli Ghai ◽  
Venkatesh Subramanian ◽  
Haider Jan ◽  
Jemina Loganathan ◽  
Stergios K. Doumouchtsis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Management ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Behavioural Interventions ◽  
Recommended Treatment ◽  
Muscular Dysfunction ◽  
Health Related

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Variations in guidelines may result in differences in treatments and potentially poorer health-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the quality of national and international guidelines and create an inventory of CPG recommendations on CPP. Methods We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from inception till August 2020 as well as websites of professional organizations and societies. We selected national and international CPGs reporting on the diagnosis and management of female CPP. We included six CPGs. Five researchers independently assessed the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE II tool and extracted recommendations. Results Two hundred thirty-two recommendations were recorded and grouped into six categories: diagnosis, medical treatment, surgical management, behavioural interventions, complementary/alternative therapies and education/research. Thirty-nine (17.11%) recommendations were comparable including: a comprehensive pain history, a multi-disciplinary approach, attributing muscular dysfunction as a cause of CPP and an assessment of quality of life. Two guidelines acknowledged sexual dysfunction associated with CPP and recommended treatment with pelvic floor exercises and behavioural interventions. All guidelines recommended surgical management; however, there was no consensus regarding adhesiolysis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during hysterectomy, neurectomy and laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation. Half of recommendations (106, 46.49%) were unreferenced or made in absence of good-quality evidence or supported by expert opinion. Based on the AGREE II assessment, two guidelines were graded as high quality and recommended without modifications (EAU and RCOG). Guidelines performed poorly in the “Applicability”, “Editorial Independence” and “Stakeholder Involvement” domains. Conclusion Majority of guidelines were of moderate quality with significant variation in recommendations and quality of guideline development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document