Thomas Semlitsch1, Klaus Jeitler2, Ina B Kopp3, Andrea Siebenhofer4. 1. Evidence Based Medicine Review Center, Universitätsklinik für Innere Medizin, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich, Deutschland. Electronic address: thomas.semlitsch@medunigraz.at. 2. Evidence Based Medicine Review Center, Universitätsklinik für Innere Medizin, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich, Deutschland; Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Statistik und Dokumentation, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich, Deutschland. 3. AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, FB Medizin der Philipps-Universität, Marburg, Deutschland. 4. Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to lack of time, a detailed appraisal of guideline quality with complex assessment instruments such as AGREE and DELBI is not always feasible. Therefore, our aim was to develop an assessment tool in the form of a 'mini checklist' that would make it possible to quickly gauge guideline quality. METHOD: 1. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and international guideline portals for available assessment tools (cut-off value for relevance: mentioned in > 50% of cases). 2. Assessment of all identified appraisal criteria in an online survey among members of the DELBI 2.0 group of experts (cut-off value for relevance: mentioned in > 75% of cases). 3. Internal Delphi technique and consensus. RESULTS: 489 requirements for the methodological quality of guidelines were extracted from 24 identified assessment instruments. These could be merged to create 49 appraisal criteria that were then evaluated by 28 of the experts approached (response rate: 43 %). Initially, 8 appraisal criteria reached both cut-off values. Seven additional appraisal criteria were adopted by consensus. According to the orientation of their content, the 15 appraisal criteria were then grouped together to form the 8 appraisal criteria that were finally included in the mini checklist. CONCLUSIONS: An assessment of guideline quality can be based on a few very important key questions, and it would be reasonable for clinicians to do so. This could promote wider acceptance of guidelines in general practice and hospitals.
BACKGROUND: Due to lack of time, a detailed appraisal of guideline quality with complex assessment instruments such as AGREE and DELBI is not always feasible. Therefore, our aim was to develop an assessment tool in the form of a 'mini checklist' that would make it possible to quickly gauge guideline quality. METHOD: 1. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and international guideline portals for available assessment tools (cut-off value for relevance: mentioned in > 50% of cases). 2. Assessment of all identified appraisal criteria in an online survey among members of the DELBI 2.0 group of experts (cut-off value for relevance: mentioned in > 75% of cases). 3. Internal Delphi technique and consensus. RESULTS: 489 requirements for the methodological quality of guidelines were extracted from 24 identified assessment instruments. These could be merged to create 49 appraisal criteria that were then evaluated by 28 of the experts approached (response rate: 43 %). Initially, 8 appraisal criteria reached both cut-off values. Seven additional appraisal criteria were adopted by consensus. According to the orientation of their content, the 15 appraisal criteria were then grouped together to form the 8 appraisal criteria that were finally included in the mini checklist. CONCLUSIONS: An assessment of guideline quality can be based on a few very important key questions, and it would be reasonable for clinicians to do so. This could promote wider acceptance of guidelines in general practice and hospitals.
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: 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: Karl Horvath; Thomas Semlitsch; Klaus Jeitler; Muna E Abuzahra; Nicole Posch; Andreas Domke; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea Siebenhofer; Thomas Semlitsch; Thomas Herborn; Ulrich Siering; Ina Kopp; Johannes Hartig Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Truc Sophia Dinh; Maria-Sophie Brueckle; Ana Isabel González-González; Joachim Fessler; Ursula Marschall; Manfred Schubert-Zsilavesz; Ferdinand M Gerlach; Sebastian Harder; Marjan van den Akker; Ingrid Schubert; Christiane Muth Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-07