Assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines for post-stroke rehabilitation of aphasia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of guidelines for rehabilitation of post-stroke aphasia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument and identify consistency of different guidelines.Methods
A systematic search was undertaken from inception to October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, and assessed eligible guidelines using the AGREE-II. Agreement among reviewers was measured by using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).Results
From 5008 records screened, 8 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The quality of guidelines was heterogeneous. Three guidelines were rated high (6.5) across; the highest rated domain was "scope and purpose' (median score 95.8%); the lowest rated domain was "rigor of development' (median score 67.2%). An overall high degree of agreement among reviewers to each domain was observed (ICC ranged from 0.60 to 0.99). The speech language therapy was recommended in 3 guidelines. Four guidelines described group treatment was beneficial for the continuum of care. However, other therapies for aphasia varied in the level of detail across guidelines.Conclusions
Our study indicated the quality of guidelines for post-stroke aphasia needed to be improved. Moreover, the treatment recommendations of aphasia existed discrepancy among the included guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested to pay more attention on the rigor of methodology and applicability during the process of the formulation of guideline. Future research should focus on the effectiveness, intensity, and duration of treatment measures.
SUBMITTER: Wang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6709092 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine what factors determine the quality of rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs).Design6 Databases were searched for papers that had applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) quality assessment tool to rehabilitation CPGs. The 573 de-duplicated abstracts were independently screened by two authors, resulting in 81 articles, the full texts of which were independently screened by two authors for AGREE II application to rehabilitation CPGs, resulting in a final selection of 40 reviews appraising 504 CPGs. Data were extracted from these by one author and checked by a second. Data on each CPG included the 6 AGREE II domain scores, as well as the two AGREE II global evaluations.ResultsAll six AGREE II domain scores were statistically significant predictors of Overall CPG quality rating; D3 (rigor of development) was the strongest and D1 (scope and purpose) the weakest; overall model p < 0.001; R = 0.53. Five of the 6 domain scores were significant predictors of the CPG use Recommendation, with D3 the strongest predictor and D5 (applicability) the weakest; overall model p < 0.001; pseudo R = 0.53.ConclusionsQuality of rehabilitation CPGs may be improved by addressing key domains such as Rigor of development.
| S-EPMC8265547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines.AimTo review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument.MethodMedline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument.ResultsThirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development.ConclusionClinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.
| S-EPMC10830799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe American Dental Association (ADA) defines evidence-based dentistry (EBD) as "an approach to oral healthcare that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Therefore, ADA CPGs are the most rigorous examples of EBD to inform clinical practice. CPGs should be of the highest level of quality to ensure the appropriateness and timeliness of clinical recommendations.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the methodological rigor and transparency of the ADA CPGs.MethodsEach ADA CPG was appraised by 4 independent assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Quantitative quality scores were obtained for 6 domains and overall quality. In addition, assessors provided a qualitative analysis by providing comments for each item and an appraisal of the full recommendation.ResultsA quality score of 75% was used as the threshold for high-quality guidelines. Using this metric, 6 of the current 10 current ADA CPGs were considered to be of high quality, 1 was slightly below the quality threshold, and 3 were considered marginal. Even among those evaluated to be high quality in overall assessment, certain domains did not reach the quality threshold of 75%.ConclusionOverall, the ADA CPGs collectively provide high-quality guidance for the clinician. While the AGREE appraisal guidelines have been used in CPG development since 2016, there is still room for improvement in certain domains (i.e., stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence).Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this study summarize the methodological rigor and transparency of the 10 current ADA clinical practice guidelines. Since adoption of AGREE standards (2016), CPGs have been uniformly of high quality. The quality of older CPGs was somewhat lower but overall deemed acceptable. Thus, ADA CPGs may be used with confidence to inform practitioners of treatment options supported by rigorous evidence-based dentistry standards. However, there is still room for improvement in methodological quality.
| S-EPMC10029135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years. Here, we assessed the quality of pediatric CPGs, considering factors that might affect their quality. The aim of the study is to promote a more coherent development and application of CPGs.MethodsPediatric CPGs published in PubMed, MedLive, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and World Health Organization between 2017 and 2019 were searched and collected. Paired researchers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Linear regression analysis determined the factors affecting CPGs' quality.ResultsThe study included a total of 216 CPGs, which achieved a mean score of 4.26 out of 7 points (60.86%) in the AGREE II assessment. Only 6.48% of the CPGs reached the "recommend" level. The remaining 69.91% should have been modified before recommendation, while the other 23.61% did not reach the recommended level at all. The overall quality of recent pediatric CPGs was higher than previously, and the proportion of CPGs with low-quality decreased over time. However, there were still too few CPGs that reached a high-quality level. The "applicability" and "rigor of development" domains had generally low scores. CPGs formulated by developing countries or regions, those that are not under an organizations or groups responsibility, and those that used non-evidence-based methods were found to be associated with poorer quality in different domains as independent or combinational factors.ConclusionsThe quality of pediatric CPGs still needs to be improved. Specifically, a quality control before applying new CPGs should be essential to ensure their quality and applicability.
| S-EPMC8103635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are being developed and implemented in order to improve clinical practice related to the detection and treatment of CKD. The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs regarding the CKD and to examine whether there are factors which influence their quality.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to identify all CPGs regarding the early diagnosis and treatment of CKD. The CPGs quality were evaluated by three reviewers using the AGREE II instrument to decide if the guidelines are recommended for their use in clinical practice.ResultsIn total, 13 CPGs were identified: five from America, six from Europe, one from Asia, and one from Oceania. Five CPGs were recommended for their use in clinical practice; since all their domains achieved the medium or high category. Furthermore, six CPGs were recommended with modifications, as the stakeholders' involvement, applicability, and editorial independence domains were evaluated as low category. These domains, as well as the rigor of the development domain, reached the very low category in those CPGs that were not recommended for its use in clinical practice. In all CPGs, the domains with the lowest average were the stakeholder involvement and the applicability. When comparing the domains of the CPGs according to the origin, type of developer group, the checklist used during the development and the publication period, a significantly higher average in the domain stakeholder involvement was found in the CPGs from Asia and Oceania compared to the ones in Latin America. Additionally, a significantly higher average in the applicability domain was found in the CPGs developed by CPGs developer organizations compared to those developed by medical societies.ConclusionsIn total, 85% of the CPGs regarding CKD were recommended or recommended with modifications. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains are assessed in the low category, which might affect the CPGs implementation. In order to save resources in low- and middle-income countries, an adaptation of the recommended CPGs should be considered.
| S-EPMC6540562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDysphagia is a common complication in stroke patients, widely affecting recovery and quality of life after stroke. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the gaps that between evidence and practice by critically assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of dysphagia in stroke.MethodsWe systematically searched academic databases and guideline repositories between January 1, 2014, and August 1, 2023. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was used by two authors to independently assess CPG quality.ResultsIn a total of 14 CPGs included, we identified that three CPGs obtained a final evaluation of "high quality," nine CPGs achieved "moderate quality" and two CPGs received "low quality." The domain of "scope and purpose" achieved the highest mean score (91.1%) and the highest median (IQR) of 91.7% (86.1, 94.4%), while the domain of "applicability" received the lowest mean score (55.8%) and the lowest median (IQR) of 55.4% (43.2, 75.5%).ConclusionThe CPG development group should pay more attention to improving the methodological quality according to the AGREE II instrument, especially in the domain of "applicability" and "stakeholder involvement;" and each item should be refined as much as possible.
| S-EPMC10728278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain recommendation statements aimed at optimising care for adults with stroke and other brain injury. The aim of this study was to determine the quality, scope and consistency of CPG recommendations for rehabilitation covering the acquired brain injury populations. DESIGN:Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS:Included CPGs contained recommendations for inpatient rehabilitation or community rehabilitation for adults with an acquired brain injury diagnosis (stroke, traumatic or other non-progressive acquired brain impairments). Electronic databases (n=2), guideline organisations (n=4) and websites of professional societies (n=17) were searched up to November 2017. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, and textual syntheses were used to appraise and compare recommendations. RESULTS:From 427 papers screened, 20 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Only three guidelines were rated high (>75%) across all domains of AGREE-II; highest rated domains were 'scope and purpose' (85.1, SD 18.3) and 'clarity' (76.2%, SD 20.5). Recommendations for assessment and for motor therapies were most commonly reported, however, varied in the level of detail across guidelines. CONCLUSION:Rehabilitation CPGs were consistent in scope, suggesting little difference in rehabilitation approaches between vascular and traumatic brain injury. There was, however, variability in included studies and methodological quality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016026936.
| S-EPMC5855444 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background Aphasia is considered an acquired communication disorder. Language intervention in aphasia enhances the patient outcomes. Recently, computer programs are developed for the treatment of aphasia. It is an effective and a low-cost therapy choice. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of language therapy using a computer-based Arabic software program for rehabilitation of post-stroke Arabic-speaking aphasic patients in comparison to the conventional language therapy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with blinded endpoint evaluation. The trial included 50 aphasic patients. They were randomized into either group I or group II to receive 48 therapy sessions using the Arabic software program (group I) or the conventional therapy (group II). The primary outcome was a measure of improvement in language abilities. It was measured using the Arabic version of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination to detect any significant improvement in the language of both groups in comparison to pre-therapy results. The post-therapy results of both groups were compared to each other to document the effectiveness of the software program. Results A total of 105 aphasic patients were screened and 50 subjects were randomized to the intervention groups [40 subjects were males, mean age of the patients: 57.04 years± SD 10.88 for group I and 58.80 years ± SD 11.58 for group II]. The therapy results showed a significant improvement from the baseline in both groups. There was no significant difference in the post-therapy results between group I and group II except for some items whereas group I showed more significant improvement. Conclusions Language therapy using a computer-based Arabic software program was as effective as the conventional therapy in the improvement of language abilities of Arabic-speaking aphasic patients.
| S-EPMC8316710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConstraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) has been widely used in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation. An increasing number of clinical controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of the CIAT for the post-stroke aphasia.PurposeTo systematically review the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the effect of the CIAT in post-stroke patients with aphasia, and to identify the useful components of CIAT in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation.MethodsA computerized database search was performed through five databases (Pubmed, EMbase, Medline, ScienceDirect and Cochrane library). Cochrane handbook domains were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included RCTs.ResultsEight RCTs qualified in the inclusion criteria. Inconsistent results were found in comparing the CIAT with conventional therapies without any component from the CIAT based on the results of three RCTs. Five RCTs showed that the CIAT performed equally well as other intensive aphasia therapies, in terms of improving language performance. One RCT showed that therapies embedded with social interaction were likely to enhance the efficacy of the CIAT.ConclusionCIAT may be useful for improving chronic post-stroke aphasia, however, limited evidence to support its superiority to other aphasia therapies. Massed practice is likely to be a useful component of CIAT, while the role of "constraint" is needed to be further explored. CIAT embedded with social interaction may gain more benefits.
| S-EPMC5573268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNumerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published to guide management of osteoporosis. Little is known about their quality or how recommendations have changed over time.ObjectiveTo systematically assess the quality and content of the guidelines on screening for osteoporosis, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards for trustworthy guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for osteoporosis CPGs published between 2002-2016, using multiple databases and guideline websites. Two reviewers appraised the quality of eligible CPGs using the AGREE II. High quality CPGs were considered if they scored ≥ 60 in four or more domains including the domain for rigor of development. Non-parametric tests were used to test for the change of quality over time. One reviewer assessed the guidelines with IOM standards. We summarized the different evidence grading systems and extracted and compared the recommendations.ResultsA total of 33 CPGs were identified. The mean scores for AGREE II differed by domain (range: 42% to 71%). CPGs scored higher on domains for clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, and rigor of development. CPGs scored lower on domains for stakeholder involvement, editorial independence and applicability. Assessment of CPGs by IOM standards showed that CPGs scored better on standards for systematic review, establishing evidence foundation and rating strength of recommendation, articulation of recommendation, and establishing transparency. While scored lower on standards for updating, external review, and the development group composition. There was no difference in AGREE II and IOM defined guidelines' quality before and after the introduction of the two tools (P values >0.05). The IOM identified four more guidelines as high quality compared to the AGREE II. Examining these additional guidelines indicated that the two tools may give conflicting results especially for the rigor of development domain. Recommendations in certain areas showed substantial differences between guidelines.ConclusionOsteoporosis screening CPGs are of variable quality, and their recommendations often differ. Guideline quality as measured by AGREE II and IOM standards has not improved overtime. Guideline developers should work together to improve the quality and consistency of recommendations to improve the likelihood that their guidelines will be used in practice.
| S-EPMC6283636 | biostudies-literature