BACKGROUND: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II. METHODS: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. RESULTS: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved. INTERPRETATION: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II. METHODS: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. RESULTS: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved. INTERPRETATION: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Joan Vlayen; Bert Aertgeerts; Karin Hannes; Walter Sermeus; Dirk Ramaekers Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Steven E Hanna; Julie Makarski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-05-31 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: David Atkins; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2005-03-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: David Liu; Erica Peterson; James Dooner; Mark Baerlocher; Leslie Zypchen; Joel Gagnon; Michael Delorme; Chad Kim Sing; Jason Wong; Randolph Guzman; Gavin Greenfield; Otto Moodley; Paul Yenson Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Thomas Semlitsch; Wolfgang A Blank; Ina B Kopp; Ulrich Siering; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: M Diane Lougheed; Catherine Lemiere; Francine M Ducharme; Chris Licskai; Sharon D Dell; Brian H Rowe; Mark Fitzgerald; Richard Leigh; Wade Watson; Louis-Philippe Boulet Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Shoshana J Herzig; Susan L Calcaterra; Hilary J Mosher; Matthew V Ronan; Nicole Van Groningen; Lili Shek; Anthony Loffredo; Michelle Keller; Anupam B Jena; Teryl K Nuckols Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Amy L Kaufman; Jared Spitz; Michael Jacobs; Matthew Sorrentino; Shennin Yuen; Keith Danahey; Donald Saner; Teri E Klein; Russ B Altman; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Eric Nwachukwu Agbata; Paulina Fuentes Padilla; Ifeoma Nwando Agbata; Laura Hidalgo Armas; Ivan Solà; Kevin Pottie; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2019-04