Limitations concerning evaluation of the current guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gavriilidis P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10477653 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Limitations concerning evaluation of the current guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II.
Gavriilidis Paschalis P Askari Alan A Gavriilidis Efstratios E Di Saverio Salomone S Davies R Justin RJ de'Angelis Nicola N
Annals of translational medicine 20230626 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is the second most common primary liver tumour. High-quality guidelines are essential for effective patient stratification and individualised treatment. This study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for the resection of CC using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. A systematic search of the literature in Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase was performed. Assessment of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensuses was performed using the AGREE II instrument by four clinicians experienced in surgical practice and the AGREE II appraisal method. Literature searches identified 13 guidelines of highly variable quality according to the AGREE II criteria. The guidelines scored well in certain domains such as scope & purpose (median score across all guidelines; 65%), clarity of presentation (76%), and editorial independence (56%). However, they scored poorly for applicability (13%), rigour of development (30%), and stakeholder involvement (39%). None of the 13 guidelines was recommended universally for use without modification. Overall, the methodological quality of guidelines on the surgical management of CC is poor. Future updates should address and modify shortcomings detected by the AGREE II instrument, thereby facilitating better patient stratification and individualised treatment strategies.
| S-EPMC7188526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHaemorrhoids are a very common disease and many professional societies have produced guidelines for their treatment. The aim of this study is to appraise the quality of the existing guidelines in the management of haemorrhoids.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted in the EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and PubMed databases. The quality of guidelines was independently appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument by five of the authors.ResultsSix guidelines of varying quality were identified and included in this study. The highest scoring guidelines were the SICCR (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colorectale, which is Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery), ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) and ASCRS (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons) guidelines, scoring 86% each overall. There was considerable variability across not just the studies but across the different domains. The highest scoring domains were domain VI: editorial independence (median =95% across all studies) and domain I: Scope & Purpose (85%). The lowest scores were observed in domain V: Applicability (48%) and domain II: Stakeholder Involvement (41%). Only three of the six gained unanimous support for their use, whilst two of the guidelines were unanimously declared not suitable for clinical use.ConclusionsWith the notable exception of three guidelines (SICCR, ESCP and ASCRS), the general quality of haemorrhoid guidelines is poor. Stakeholder (especially patient) involvement and instructions on how to implement recommendations is lacking from the majority of guidelines. This is an area that requires urgent attention if we are to improve guidelines in haemorrhoid management.
| S-EPMC10113081 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4565560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical practice CPGs (CPGs) have been developed to summarize evidence related to the management of osteoarthritis (OA). CPGs facilitate uptake of evidence-based knowledge by consumers, health professionals, health administrators and policy makers. The objectives of the present review were: 1) to assess the quality of the CPGs on non-pharmacological management of OA; using a standardized and validated instrument--the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool--by three pairs of trained appraisers; and 2) to summarize the recommendations based on only high-quality existing CPGs. Scientific literature databases from 2001 to 2013 were systematically searched for the state of evidence, with 17 CPGs for OA being identified. Most CPGs effectively addressed only a minority of AGREE II domains. Scope and purpose was effectively addressed in 10 CPGs on the management of OA, stakeholder involvement in 12 CPGs, rigour of development in 10 CPGs, clarity/presentation in 17 CPGs, editorial independence in 2 CPGs, and applicability in none of the OA CPGs. The overall quality of the included CPGs, according to the 7-point AGREE II scoring system, is 4.8 ± 0.41 for OA. Therapeutic exercises, patient education, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, orthoses and insoles, heat and cryotherapy, patellar tapping, and weight control are commonly recommended for the non-pharmacological management of OA by the high-quality CPGs. The general clinical management recommendations tended to be similar among high-quality CPGs, although interventions addressed varied. Non-pharmacological management interventions were superficially addressed in more than half of the selected CPGs. For CPGs to be standardized uniform creators should use the AGREE II criteria when developing CPGs. Innovative and effective methods of CPG implementation to users are needed to ultimately enhance the quality of life of arthritic individuals.
| S-EPMC3888378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical practice guidelines are a valuable resource aiding medical decision-making based on scientific evidence. In anaesthesia, guidelines are increasing in both number and scope, influencing individual practice and shaping local departmental policy. The aim of this review is to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines published in high impact anaesthesia journals over the past 5 yr using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. A literature search was conducted in Scopus to identify all guidelines published in the top 10 anaesthesia journals as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor from 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for analysis by five independent appraisers using AGREE II. Each guideline was assessed across six domains and 23 items. Individual domain scores were calculated with a threshold agreed via consensus to represent high-quality guidelines. There was a significant increase in overall score over time (P=0.041), driven by Domain 3 (Rigour of Development, P=0.046). The raw overall score for Domain 3, however, was low. The other domains performed as expected based on previous studies, with Domains 1, 4, and 6 achieving high scores and Domains 2 and 5 incurring poor ratings. Most guidelines studied involved international collaboration but emerged from a single professional society. Use of an appraisal tool was stated as high but poorly detailed. The improvement in the overall score of guidelines and rigour of development is promising; however, only seven guidelines met high-quality criteria, suggesting room for improvement for the overall integrity of guidelines in anaesthesia.
| S-EPMC9074794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveTo systematically review, critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), and map their recommendations.Data sourcesCPG databases (GIN, ECRI, NICE, SIGN, DynaMed), Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL), and related specialized professional societies (e.g., AAP, CPS, BAPM, RCPCH, and SNS).Study selectionOriginal de-novo developed evidence-based CPGs for HIE, group authorship, Arabic or English languages, and international or national scope. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Johnston et al methodological guide.Data extractionQuality assessment of the included HIE CPGs by the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument and report their characteristics, AGREE II ratings, and recommendations.Data synthesisOur search retrieved 2,489 citations, of which two recent HIE CPGs were eligible and appraised: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QMN). The overall assessment of the QMN CPG was superior (83%). Domain 1 (Scope & Purpose) scored (47%, 63%), Domain 2 (Stakeholder Involvement) (72%, 39%), Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) (48%, 43%), Domain 4 (Clarity & Presentation) (100%, 96%), Domain 5 (Applicability) (59%, 9%), and Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) (67%, 17%) for the QMN and CPS CPGs respectively. All appraisers recommended the QMN CPG for use in practice.ConclusionThe methodological quality of the QMN CPG was superior with the relevant recommendations for its use in neonatal practice.Limitationslimited to Arabic and English languages.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=258291, identifier: CRD42021258291.
| S-EPMC10073446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.MethodsA search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus.ResultsOverall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title ('guideline' vs 'consensus statement'/ 'recommendations') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse.ConclusionsCOVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.
| S-EPMC9485431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to summarize evidence about the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and facilitate the uptake of evidence-based knowledge by consumers, health professionals, health administrators and policy makers. The objectives of this review was to assess the quality of CPGS on non-pharmacological management of RA with a standardized and validated instrument--the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and summarize the key recommendations from these CPGs. Scientific literature databases from 2001 to 2013 were systematically searched and a total of 13 CPGs for RA was identified. Only a minority of AGREE II domains were effectively addressed by the CPGS. Scope and purpose was effectively addressed in 10 out of 13 CPGs, stakeholder involvement in 11 CPGs, rigor of development in 6 CPGs, clarity/presentation in 9 CPGs, editorial independence in 1 CPGs, and applicability in none of the CPGs. The overall quality of the included CPGs according to the 7-point AGREE II scoring system was 4.8 ± 1.04. Patient education/self-management, aerobic, dynamic and stretching exercises were the commonly recommended for the non-pharmacological management of RA by the high-quality CPGs. The general clinical management recommendations tended to be similar among high-quality CPGs. Non-pharmacological management interventions were superficially addressed in more than half of the selected CPGs. CPGs creators should use the AGREE II criteria when developing guidelines. Innovative and effective methods of CPGs implementation to users are needed to ultimately enhance the quality of life of arthritic individuals. In addition, it was difficult to establish between strongly recommended, recommended and weakly recommended, as there is no consensus between the strength of the recommendations between the appraised CPGs.
| S-EPMC4026323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveNeonatal sepsis (NS) continues to be a critical healthcare priority for the coming decades worldwide. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal sepsis and to summarize and compare their recommendations.MethodsThis study involves a systematic review of CPGs. We identified clinical questions and eligibility criteria and searched and screened for CPGs using bibliographic and CPG databases and professional societies. Each included CPG was assessed by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We summarized the recommendations in a comparison practical table. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Its protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42021258732).ResultsOur search retrieved 4,432 citations; of which five CPGs were eligible and appraised: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2018) (35 and 34 weeks); Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2021); and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QH 2020). Among these, the overall assessment of two evidence-based CPGs scored > 70% (NICE and QH), which was consistent with their higher scores in the six domains of the AGREE II instrument. In domain 3 (rigor of development), NICE and QH scored 99 and 60%, respectively. In domain 5 (applicability), they scored 96 and 74%, respectively, and in domain 6 (editorial independence), they scored 90 and 71%, respectively.ConclusionThe methodological quality of the NICE CPG was superior followed by the QH CPG with relevant recommendations for use in practice.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258732, PROSPERO (CRD42021258732).
| S-EPMC9424847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genetic testing of children is faced with numerous problems. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed to ensure its safe, and appropriate use. This study aimed to systematically identify the current CPGs for genetic testing in children, and to assess the methodological quality of these CPGs.We searched 6 databases, 3 guideline clearinghouses, and 9 web sites of relevant academic agencies from inception to February 2019. CPGs focused on genetic testing in children were included. Four reviewers independently appraised the quality of the eligible CPGs using the appraisal of guidelines for research, and evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.Seventeen CPGs meeting our inclusion criteria were included. Among them, 16 CPGs were focused on the genetic diagnosis/evaluation of diseases, while only 1 CPG was focused on pharmacogenetics. The median domain scores from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose 80.56% (range: 56.95%-87.50%), clarity of presentation 72.22% (range: 45.83%-88.89%), stakeholder involvement 45.83% (range: 27.78%-55.56%), applicability 31.25% (range: 19.79%-54.17%), rigor of development 21.88%, (range: 13.02%-71.88%), and editorial independence 18.75% (range: 0%-83.33%). According to the overall quality, 6 (35%) CPGs were "not recommended," 8 (47%) CPGs were "recommended with modifications," and only 3 (18%) CPGs were "recommended." The clinical topics of the "recommended" CPGs were warfarin, familial Mediterranean fever, and pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension.The quality of CPGs for genetic testing in children was generally low, and variable across different CPGs and different AGREE II domains. In future guideline development, more attention should be paid to the aspects of stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Not only will guideline users benefit from our results when determining whether to adopt related CPGs to guide genetic testing in children, but guideline developers could also take into account our results to improve the quality of future CPGs.
| S-EPMC6946213 | biostudies-literature