Literature DB >> 24760732

Methodological quality of guidelines in gastroenterology.

Rui Malheiro1, Matilde de Monteiro-Soares1, Cesare Hassan2, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Clinical guidelines are a common feature in modern endoscopy practice and they are being produced faster than ever. However, their methodological quality is rarely assessed. This study evaluated the methodological quality of current clinical guidelines in the field of gastroenterology, with an emphasis on endoscopy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Practice guidelines published by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were searched between September and October 2012 and evaluated using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument (23 items, scores 1 - 7 for each item; higher scores mean better quality).
RESULTS: A total of 100 guidelines were assessed. The mean number of items scoring 6 or 7 per guideline was 9.2 (out of 23 items). Overall, 99 % of guidelines failed to include the target population in the development process, and 96 % did not report facilitators and barriers to guideline application. In addition, 86 % did not include advice or tools, and 94 % did not present monitoring or auditing criteria.
CONCLUSION: The global methodological quality of clinical guidelines in the field of gastroenterology is poor, particularly regarding involvement of the target population in the development of guidelines and in the provision of clear suggestions to practitioners. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24760732     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365394

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  4 in total

1.  The quality of guidelines for diabetic foot ulcers: A critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.

Authors:  Peiying Zhang; Qian Lu; Huijuan Li; Wei Wang; Gaoqiang Li; Longmei Si; Yanming Ding
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Randomised controlled trial of WISENSE, a real-time quality improving system for monitoring blind spots during esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Authors:  Lianlian Wu; Jun Zhang; Wei Zhou; Ping An; Lei Shen; Jun Liu; Xiaoda Jiang; Xu Huang; Ganggang Mu; Xinyue Wan; Xiaoguang Lv; Juan Gao; Ning Cui; Shan Hu; Yiyun Chen; Xiao Hu; Jiangjie Li; Di Chen; Dexin Gong; Xinqi He; Qianshan Ding; Xiaoyun Zhu; Suqin Li; Xiao Wei; Xia Li; Xuemei Wang; Jie Zhou; Mengjiao Zhang; Hong Gang Yu
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Endoscopists' Acceptance on the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Development and Case Analysis of a Scale.

Authors:  Li Tian; Zinan Zhang; Yu Long; Anliu Tang; Minzi Deng; Xiuyan Long; Ning Fang; Xiaoyu Yu; Xixian Ruan; Jianing Qiu; Xiaoyan Wang; Haijun Deng
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-12

4.  Feedback Survey of the Effect, Burden, and Cost of the National Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program during the Past 5 Years in Korea.

Authors:  Yu Kyung Cho; Jeong Seop Moon; Dong Su Han; Yong Chan Lee; Yeol Kim; Bo Young Park; Il-Kwun Chung; Jin-Oh Kim; Jong Pil Im; Jae Myung Cha; Hyun Gun Kim; Sang Kil Lee; Hang Lak Lee; Jae Young Jang; Eun Sun Kim; Yunho Jung; Chang Mo Moon
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2016-03-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.