Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

          Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines

            AGREE II is a widely used standard for assessing the methodological quality of practice guidelines. This article describes the development of the AGREE Reporting Checklist, which was designed to improve the quality of practice guideline reporting and aligns with AGREE II in its structure and content.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement.

              The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +81-3-3762-4151 , health@med.toho-u.ac.jp
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                4 November 2019
                4 November 2019
                2019
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9290 9879, GRID grid.265050.4, Department of Social Medicine, , Toho University School of Medicine, ; 5-21-16, Omori-Nishi, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 143-8540 Japan
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2151 536X, GRID grid.26999.3d, Department of Social Medicine, , Toho University Graduate School of Medicine, ; Tokyo, Japan
                [3 ]GRID grid.440953.f, Faculty of Health Sciences, , Tokyo Kasei University, ; Saitama, Japan
                Article
                4532
                10.1186/s12913-019-4532-0
                6827207
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Funding
                Funded by: Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare
                Award ID: H14-Iryo-035
                Award ID: H17-Iryo Ippan-041
                Award ID: H20-Iryo Ippan-027
                Award ID: H24-Iryo Ippan-020
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Health & Social care

                appraisal, practice guideline, quality, agree, practice guidelines as topic

                Comments

                Comment on this article