Reporting of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Practical Testing of AGREE and RIGHT Checklists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tokalic R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7352030 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gliomas has not yet been thoroughly assessed. The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement developed in 2016 provides a reporting framework to improve the quality of CPGs. We aimed to estimate the reporting quality of glioma guidelines using the RIGHT checklist and investigate how the reporting quality differs by selected characteristics.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites to retrieve CPGs on glioma published between 2018 and 2020. We calculated the compliance of the CPGs to individual items, domains and the RIGHT checklist overall. We performed stratified analyses by publication year, country of development, reporting of funding, and impact factor (IF) of the journal.ResultsOur search revealed 20 eligible guidelines. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT statement was 54.6%. Eight CPGs reported more than 60% of the items, and five reported less than 50%. All guidelines adhered to the items 1a, 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 17 or 18b (see http://www.right-statement.org/right-statement/checklist for a description of the items). Two of the seven domains, "Basic information" and "Background", had mean reporting rates above 60%. The "Review and quality assurance" domain had the lowest mean reporting rate, 12.5%. The reporting quality of guidelines published in 2020, guidelines developed in the United States, and guidelines that reported funding tended to be above average.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of CPGs on gliomas is low and needs improvement. Particular attention should be paid on reporting the external review and quality assurance process. The use of the RIGHT criteria should be encouraged to guide the development, reporting and evaluation of CPGs.
| S-EPMC8267264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) instrument was launched in 2016 to improve the reporting of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on melanoma using RIGHT.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases and medical society websites until November 2020 to identify guidelines for melanoma published since 2018. The reporting quality of included guidelines was assessed by calculating the percentages of the 35 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported. We stratified the results by selected characteristics to describe the correlation of these factors with reporting quality.ResultsA total of 20 guidelines were identified and analyzed. The mean reporting rate was greater than 50% in five of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist; the remaining two domains (Other information, Review and quality assurance) both had a mean reporting rate of 35.0%. The mean overall reporting rate was 63.7%. No CPG considered equity, feasibility or acceptability of the recommendations (item 14c), and only one CPG described the role of funders (item 18b). Guidelines that reported funding or were published in higher-impact journals tended to have a higher reporting quality, whereas the reporting rate in the one included Chinese-language CPG was low.ConclusionsReporting quality of melanoma CPGs tends to be relatively good. The CPGs developed in China were however an exception. The use of the 2016 RIGHT tool in guideline development should be encouraged to support rigorous and transparent reporting.
| S-EPMC8350697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognised, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). METHODS:Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies was conducted using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardised percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. RESULTS:Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," "Clarity of Presentation" and "Editorial Independence") had mean scores of 53%-78%. The mean "Overall Assessment" rating was 69% and was not associated with policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence or strength of recommendations. We found positive associations between "Overall Assessment" ratings and two domains: "Rigor of Development" (r = 0.70) and "Clarity of Presentation" (r = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS:Based on validated AGREE II criteria, ACEP clinical policies can be most improved by addressing their application in practice. ACEP clinical policies' overall quality did not improve over the assessed time period and is not explained by the quality of underlying evidence.
| S-EPMC6351191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveClinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.SettingSeven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.ParticipantsParticipants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.InterventionsThere were no limitations with regard to intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.ResultsTwelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).ConclusionsAppraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.
| S-EPMC6924717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.ResultsTwenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.
| S-EPMC8350680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for the reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to assess the reporting quality of CPGs for pancreatic cancer following the RIGHT checklist.MethodsGuidelines for pancreatic cancer were identified by searching electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites. The reporting quality was evaluated by calculating the adherence to the items of the RIGHT checklist and summarizing them over the seven domains and the entire checklist. We also present results stratified by selected characteristics.ResultsA total of 22 guidelines were found eligible. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT items was 60.0%. All guidelines adhered to the RIGHT items 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 14c or 18b, which are some of the topics dealing with rationale for recommendations and funding source, respectively. Of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, "Review and quality assurance" and "Funding and declaration and management of interests" had the lowest reporting rates (25.0% and 43.2%, respectively); the remaining five domains had reporting rates >50%. CPGs that reported funding support, were published in higher-impact journals, and that applied a grading system for the quality of evidence, tended to have higher reporting rates.ConclusionsOur results show that reporting quality of pancreatic cancer CPGs still needs to be improved. The use of the RIGHT statement should be encouraged when developing new guidelines.
| S-EPMC8339847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to use RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on prostate cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched literature databases and websites from January 1, 2018 to December 1, 2020 to identify CPGs on prostate cancer. Two investigators reviewed the identified articles and assessed the reporting quality independently by using the RIGHT checklist. We reported the proportions of guidelines that complied with each of the 35 RIGHT checklist item and the mean reporting compliance percentages for each of the seven domains of RIGHT.ResultsA total of 38 CPGs were included. The mean overall reporting rate over the included CPGs was 51.6%. Eighteen items were reported by more than half of the guidelines four items (1a 3, 7a and 13a) were reported by all guidelines. Items 7b (10.5%), 13b (10.5%), 14c (13.2%), and 18b (7.9%) had the lowest reporting proportions. The mean reporting rates in each RIGHT domain were 74.6% for "Basic Information", 26.3% for "Review and quality assurance", 59.9% for "Background", 43.7% for "Evidence", 43.2% for "Recommendations", 43.4% for "Funding and declaration and management of interests", and 43.0% for "Other information".ConclusionsThe overall adherence of CPGs on prostate cancer to RIGHT checklist is poor. Following the RIGHT checklist during the development of the guideline could improve the quality of reporting in the future.
| S-EPMC8350620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of AML have great value in clinical practice. However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not yet been evaluated. This is the first study aiming to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent AML CPGs published worldwide using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) to extract CPGs for AML published between January 2016 and December 2020. Websites for guideline development organizations and medical associations were also searched. Two independent researchers assessed compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 checklist items and summarized reporting rates for the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist.ResultsWe identified 16 guidelines, of which 3 (18.8%) were written in Chinese and 13 (81.3%) were written in English. The average overall reporting rate of the 16 guidelines was 52.9%, and only 7 CPGs (43.8%) had a reporting rate >50%. The average reporting rates of the 7 domains (basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding, declaration, and management of interests; and other information) were 79.2%, 62.5%, 38.8%, 53.6%, 21.9%, 32.8%, and 43.8%, respectively. For the 35 checklist items, the average reporting rate was 52.9%, and only 16 items had a reporting rate >50%, of which 5 items were reported by all the guidelines. There was 1 item which was not reported by any of the guidelines.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of recently published AML guidelines remains poor. While the recommendations of CPGs have great value in clinical practice, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML still needs to be improved.
| S-EPMC8506773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.MethodsThe national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014-2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF10) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.ResultsOverall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0-15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0-17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF10 = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF10 = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF10 = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF10 = 16.90), primary intended users (BF10 = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF10 = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.ConclusionsImportant methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.
| S-EPMC6206632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009-2019 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wanfang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Google Scholar.ResultsSeventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%); only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (basic information, background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests, and other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.ConclusionThe reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.
| S-EPMC8022392 | biostudies-literature