Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute ankle injuries according to: a PRISMA systematic review and quality appraisal with AGREE II
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bsoul N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11229291 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was developed to improve the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). High-quality guidelines can provide reliable recommendations for different clinical issues. Currently, there is no quality appraisal of CPGs for urolithiasis. This study evaluated the quality of evidence-based CPGs for urolithiasis and provided new insights into improving guideline quality on urolithiasis.MethodsSystematic reviews were conducted to identify urolithiasis CPGs in PubMed, electronic databases, and websites of medical associations from January 2009 to July 2022. The quality of included CPGs was evaluated by four reviewers using the AGREE II instrument. Subsequently, the scores of all domains in the AGREE II instrument were calculated.ResultsA total of 19 urolithiasis CPGs were identified for review: seven from Europe, six from USA, three from international union, two from Canada, and one from Asia. The agreement among reviewers was rated good [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 0.806; 95% CI: 0.779-0.831]. The domains with the highest scores were scope and purpose (69.7%, 54.2-86.1%) and clarity of presentation (76.8%, 59.7-90.3%). The domains of stakeholder involvement (44.9%, 19.4-84.7%) and applicability (48.5%, 30.2-72.9%) gained the lowest score. Only five guidelines (26.3%) were considered "strongly recommended".ConclusionsThe overall quality of the eligible CPGs was relatively high; however, future work is still needed in the domains of rigor of development, editorial independence, applicability, and stakeholder involvement.
| S-EPMC10323444 | biostudies-literature
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:Multiple guidelines on cutaneous melanoma (CM) are available from several consortia and countries. To provide up-to-date guidance in the rapidly changing field of melanoma treatment, guideline developers have to provide regular updates without compromises of quality. We performed a systematic search in guideline databases, Medline and Embase to identify guidelines on CM. The methodological quality of the identified guidelines was independently assessed by five reviewers using the instruments "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation" (AGREE II) and "Recommendation EXcellence" (AGREE-REX). We performed descriptive analysis, explored subgroup differences using the Kruskal-Wallis (H) test and examined the relationship between distinct domains and items of the instruments with Spearman's correlation. Six guidelines by consortia from Australia, France, Germany, Scotland, Spain and the United States of America were included. The German guideline fulfilled 71%-98% of criteria in AGREE II and 78%-96% for AGREE-REX, obtaining the highest scores. Deficiencies in the domains of "applicability" and "values and preferences" were observed in all guidelines. The German and Spanish guidelines significantly differed from each other in most of the domains. The domains "applicability" and "values and preferences" were identified as methodological weaknesses requiring careful revision and improvement in the future.
| S-EPMC7352745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of massage-related clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)/consensus on massage using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to summarize the current status of recommendations in the CPGs.MethodsThe Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), PubMed, Embase, and guideline websites (such as the Chinese Medical Ace Base, the China Association of Chinese Medicine, the World Health Organization, Guideline International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) were searched from inception to October 31, 2022. In addition, the reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed to identify domestic and overseas massage CPGs/consensus. The search terms adopted a combination of subject words and free words, mainly including traditional Chinese medicine, complementary therapies, Tuina, massage, manipulation, chiropractic/osteopathic, spinal, acupressure, guideline, and consensus. Two researchers independently completed the eligible records and extracted the data. Before the formal research, calibrations were performed twice on AGREE II, and all reviewers completed the pilot test three times until they understood and reached an agreement on the assessment items. Three researchers appraised the methodological quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II instrument and calculated the overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of agreement.ResultsThe evaluation results showed that among the 49 eligible CPGs/consensus, 4 (8.2%) CPGs/consensus were considered "recommended", 15 (30.6%) CPGs/consensus were considered "recommended with modifications", and 30 (61.2%) CPGs/consensus were considered "not recommended", while the consensus was considered "not recommended". Generally, the scores in the six domains of the guidelines were all higher than the consensus. Evaluation results for the overall quality of 36 CPGs showed that 4 (11%) were "good quality", 15 (42%) were "sufficient quality" and 17 (47%) were "lower quality". The AGREE II quality scores of domains ranged from 0.30 to 0.75 ([ICC = 0.993, 95% CI (0.992, 0.995)]). The domain of scope and purpose (domain 1), with a median score of 0.75 (0.52~0.91), performed best in the guidelines with AGREE II, and stakeholder involvement (domain 2) [median 0.39 (0.31~0.56)] and application (domain 5) [median 0.30 (0.17~0.47] obtained lower scores. The consensus score of domain 1 was better at 26.0 (21.6~44.8), followed by rigor of development (domain 3) with a score of 18.0 (10.0~28.9). A total of 119 massage-related recommendations were extracted from 49 guidelines/consensuses, including "in favor" (102, 85.7%), "against" (9, 7.6%), and "did not make recommendations" (8, 6.7%).ConclusionThe overall quality of the included guidelines was low, and most of the guidelines were not "recommended". In future guideline updates, the existing evidence should be used, the professional composition of members of the expert group should be enriched, and patients' values and preferences should be fully considered. It is necessary to clearly propose recognizable recommendations and strengthen the rigor and standardization of guideline formulation. Thus, clear standard guidelines can be formulated to better guide clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10921609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evidence base behind new melanoma treatments is rapidly accumulating. This is not necessarily reflected in current guidance. A recent UK-based expert consensus statement, published in JPRAS, has called for updates to the widely accepted 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for melanoma (NG14). We aimed to compare the quality of NG14 to all other melanoma guidelines published since.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, and online clinical practice guideline databases to identify melanoma guidelines published between 29th July 2015 and 23rd August 2021 providing recommendations for adjuvant treatment, radiotherapy, surgical management, or follow-up care. Three authors independently assessed the quality of identified guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) assessment tool, which measures six domains of guideline development. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W).ResultsTwenty-nine guidelines were included and appraised with excellent concordance (Kendall's W for overall guideline score 0.88, p<0.001). Overall, melanoma guidelines scored highly in the domains of 'Scope and purpose' and 'Clarity of presentation', but poorly in the 'Applicability' domain. The NICE guideline on melanoma (NG14) achieved the best overall scores.ConclusionMelanoma treatment has advanced since NG14 was published, however, the NICE melanoma guideline is of higher quality than more recent alternatives. The planned update of NG14 in 2022 is in demand.
| S-EPMC8732330 | 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:BackgroundClinical 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).MethodsSystematic 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.ResultsTwenty 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).ConclusionsBased 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:Background and objectiveHigh quality evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have a major impact on the appropriate diagnosis and management and positive outcomes. The evidence-based healthcare for patients with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) is challenging. The objective of this study was to appraise the quality of published CPGs for ADHD.MethodsA systematic review was conducted for ADHD CPGs using CPG databases, DynaMed, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The quality of each included CPG was appraised by three independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.ResultsSix CPGs were critically reviewed. The AGREE II standardized domain scores revealed variation between the quality of these CPGs with the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), University of Michigan Health System, and American Academy of Pediatrics CPGs as the top three. Overall, the recommendations for management of ADHD were similar in these CPGs.ConclusionsReporting of CPG development is often poorly documented. Guideline development groups should aim to follow the AGREE II criteria to improve the standards and quality of CPGs. The NICE CPG showed the best quality. Embedding the AGREE II appraisal of CPGs in the training and education of healthcare providers is recommended. The protocol for this study was published in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews). Link: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078712 and is additionally available from protocols.io. Link: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.q27dyhn.
| S-EPMC6611626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically assess the methodological quality of current sepsis infection management guidelines and identify gaps in knowledge that limit evidence-based practice.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to obtain guidelines for the management of sepsis infections (2012-2021), and three reviewers independently assessed the quality of eligible guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement between reviewers. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to analyze the strength of recommendation and level of evidence of the guideline, and the number of recommendations, strength of recommendation, and level of evidence were determined.ResultsEleven guidelines for the management of sepsis infection were identified. An overall high agreement among the evaluators for each domain was observed (ICC ranged from 0.850 to 0.959). The overall scores of the included guidelines were all over 60% (range, 62.3-89.90%), which were worthy of recommendation for clinical use; among them, 4 guidelines had an overall score of over 80%, which were high-quality guideline articles. In terms of the quality domains of the guidelines, the scope and purpose domain and the clarity of expression domain had the highest average scores, which were 93.6% (range, 79.6-98.1%) and 91.4% (range, 64.8-98.1%), respectively, while the applicability domain had the lowest average score, which was 64.8% (range, 51.4-76.4%). The strength of the recommendations of the guideline recommendations was mainly weak, accounting for 73.4%; the level of evidence cited was mainly very low quality (60.2%) and low quality (28.1%).ConclusionsThe quality of sepsis infection management guidelines varies, but the overall quality level is satisfactory. Improving the low-quality areas of sepsis guidelines, attempting to resolve existing problems and controversies, and improving the quality of research evidence will be effective ways for developers to upgrade sepsis guidelines.
| S-EPMC11846407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeClinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of diseases. In orphan conditions such as uveal melanoma (UM), guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance even in the absence of high-quality evidence. Here, we assessed the methodological quality and identified deficiencies of international guidelines on UM as a base for future guideline development.MethodsA systematic search was carried out in guideline databases, Medline and Embase until 27th May 2019 for guidelines on UM published between 2004 and 2019. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the identified guidelines using the instruments "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation EXcellence). Descriptive analysis was performed and subgroup differences were explored with the Kruskal-Wallis (H) test. The relationship between the individual domains and items of the instruments were examined using Spearman's correlation.ResultsFive guidelines published from 2014 to 2018 by consortia of the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) were included. The highest scores were obtained by the UK guideline fulfilling 48-86% of criteria in AGREE II and 30-60% for AGREE-REX. All guidelines showed deficiencies in the domains "editorial independence", "applicability", and "recommendation". Subgroup differences were identified only for the domain "editorial independence".ConclusionThe UK guideline achieved the highest scores with both instruments and may serve as a basis for future guideline development in UM. The domains "editorial independence", "recommendation", and "applicability" were identified as methodological weaknesses and require particular attention and improvement in future guidelines.
| S-EPMC7085474 | biostudies-literature