OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of a four-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) that could be used in place of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed four-factor design was used (User Type, Evaluation Type, Clinical Topic, Guideline). Participants were asked to read and evaluate a guideline using both the AGREE II draft and GRS or GRS only and to complete a series of questions regarding overall guideline quality, adoption, utility, and acceptability. RESULTS: One GRS item varied as a function of User Type. Each item was a significant predictor of participants' outcome measures. All items were rated as useful by stakeholders. The GRS rating scores, outcome measures, and usefulness scores did not vary between the two Evaluation Type conditions. Correlations between the GRS and the outcome measures were stronger compared with those between the AGREE II draft and these measures. CONCLUSION: Although the GRS is less sensitive than the AGREE II in detecting differences in guideline quality as a function of User Type, its items did predict important outcome measures related to guideline adoption. The GRS may play a role in guideline evaluation, although further study is warranted. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of a four-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) that could be used in place of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed four-factor design was used (User Type, Evaluation Type, Clinical Topic, Guideline). Participants were asked to read and evaluate a guideline using both the AGREE II draft and GRS or GRS only and to complete a series of questions regarding overall guideline quality, adoption, utility, and acceptability. RESULTS: One GRS item varied as a function of User Type. Each item was a significant predictor of participants' outcome measures. All items were rated as useful by stakeholders. The GRS rating scores, outcome measures, and usefulness scores did not vary between the two Evaluation Type conditions. Correlations between the GRS and the outcome measures were stronger compared with those between the AGREE II draft and these measures. CONCLUSION: Although the GRS is less sensitive than the AGREE II in detecting differences in guideline quality as a function of User Type, its items did predict important outcome measures related to guideline adoption. The GRS may play a role in guideline evaluation, although further study is warranted. Copyright Â
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: Barbara Farrell; Kevin Pottie; Wade Thompson; Taline Boghossian; Lisa Pizzola; Farah Joy Rashid; Carlos Rojas-Fernandez; Kate Walsh; Vivian Welch; Paul Moayyedi Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Allen F Shaughnessy; Akansha Vaswani; Bonnie K Andrews; Deborah R Erlich; Frank D'Amico; Joel Lexchin; Lisa Cosgrove Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lise M Bjerre; Barbara Farrell; Matthew Hogel; Lyla Graham; Geneviève Lemay; Lisa McCarthy; Lalitha Raman-Wilms; Carlos Rojas-Fernandez; Samir Sinha; Wade Thompson; Vivian Welch; Andrew Wiens Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Wade Thompson; Simon Davies; Jean Grenier; Cheryl A Sadowski; Vivian Welch; Anne Holbrook; Cynthia Boyd; Robert Swenson; Andy Ma; Barbara Farrell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Wade Thompson; Simon Davies; Jean Grenier; Cheryl A Sadowski; Vivian Welch; Anne Holbrook; Cynthia Boyd; Robert Swenson; Andy Ma; Barbara Farrell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.275