Dataset Information

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments.

Materials and methods

A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: "yes", "yes, with modifications", "no") was examined using a multinomial regression model.

Results

118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 ("yes" vs. "no") and Domains 3 and 5 ("yes, with modifications" vs. "no").

Conclusions

The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.

SUBMITTER: Hoffmann-Eßer W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5373625 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments.

Hoffmann-Eßer Wiebke W Siering Ulrich U Neugebauer Edmund A M EA Brockhaus Anne Catharina AC Lampert Ulrike U Eikermann Michaela M

PloS one 20170330 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on e ...[more]

PMID: 28358870

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the current Chinese and English guidelines of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children and provide a summary of the recommendations of the guidelines.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted on databases, including Pubmed, SinoMed, Wangfang Data, CHKD,VIP, NICE, WHO, GIN and Medliveto retrieve data of the clinical practice guidelines on UTI from the establishment of the database to June 2020. Four assessors assessed the quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and evaluated the specific recommendations in guidelines.Results(1) Nine guidelines including two from the USA (AAP and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis) and the remaining from EAU/ESPU, SINEPE, KHA-CARI, CPS, ISPN, NICE and CMA-CSP were explored. (2) The AGREE II evaluation demonstrated higher scores of UTI guidelines in terms of 'scope and purpose' (72.99%±11.19%) and 'clarity of presentation' (75.62%±7.75%), whereas the average scores were lower in the aspect of 'stakeholder involvement' (35.49%±14.41%), 'rigour of development' (37.05%±10.05%), 'applicability' (37.75%±11.98%) and 'editorial independence' (43.06%±48.14%). The average scores of the guidelines were as follows: SINePe (72.57%), CMA-CSP (62.96%), EAU/ESPU (59.61%), AAP (56.86%), NICE (47.54%), CPS (40.93%), KHA-CARI (38.86%), ISPN (38.63%) and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis (34.72%). (3) All the selected guidelines basically reached a consensus on urine sample retention methods in older children, the antibiotic treatment course and renal and bladder ultrasonography application but lacked a conclusion on the determination of urine culture results, the choice of voiding cystourethrography and Tc-99mdimercaptosuccinicacid, and antibiotic prophylaxis.ConclusionThere remains a need to improve the quality of guidelinesfor UTI in clinical practice. Existing controversies on the current guidelines of UTI in some recommendations warrant further exploration to provide more evidence on formulating more unified and practical guidelines in the future.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this research, as it did not include patients or patient data.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this review are to: 1) appraise the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) providing pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological intervention recommendations, and 2) summarize the recommendations provided by the included CPGs and compare them where possible.MethodsA systematic search was performed. Three trained appraisers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs using a validated and reliable instrument, the Appraisal of Guidelines in Research and Evaluation II. Six domains were considered: 1) score and purpose; 2) stakeholder involvement; 3) rigor of development; 4) clarity of presentation; 5) applicability; and 6) editorial independence. The domains consist of a total of 23 items each scored on a 7-point scale. High quality CPGs were identified if they had a domain score above 60% in rigor of development, and two other domains.ResultsOf the three included CPGs, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) CPGs were considered to be of high quality, but the German Society for Pediatric Rheumatology was of lower quality. Domains one to four had high domain scores across the guidelines (mean (standard deviation)): 72.76 (13.80); 66.67 (9.81); 64.67 (7.77); and 87.00 (9.64), respectively. Lower scores were obtained for applicability (14.00 (5.57)) and editorial independence (43.44 (7.02)). Recommendations varied across CPGs due to differences in context, target audience (general practitioners, rheumatologists, and other multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) and patients' disease presentations. Despite this variability, progression of pharmacological treatment did not conflict between CPGs. Recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions were vague and the interventions considered varied between CPGs.ConclusionsOverall, recommendations were based on a paucity of evidence and weak study designs. Further research is needed on interventions in JIA, as well as higher quality CPGs to facilitate implementation of the best evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets