Thomas Semlitsch1, Wolfgang A Blank, Ina B Kopp, Ulrich Siering, Andrea Siebenhofer. 1. Institute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria, Institute of General Practice, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF), Institute of Medical Knowledge Management, Marburg, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Köln.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines of high methodological quality make an essential contribution to the quality assurance of medical knowledge. The detailed evaluation of guideline quality is a complex and time-consuming task. The answers to a few key questions generally suffice for an initial, rapid assessment of the quality and utility of a guideline. METHOD: We selectively searched the pertinent literature for guideline-assessing instruments and analyzed selected ones with respect to their target group, purpose, orientation, and comprehensiveness. We identified key questions from brief instruments that can be used to assess guideline quality rapidly. RESULTS: A comparison of ten instruments revealed that most were designed to provide a highly detailed assessment of guideline quality. Four recently developed instruments enable a rough and rapid assessment. They focus, in essence, on four key questions: Was the evidence analyzed systematically? Does the evidence support the recommendations? Is the goal of the guideline formulated, and are the authors named? Is the organization of the guideline easy to follow, and are the recommendations clearly signposted? CONCLUSION: Alongside the comprehensive instruments for assessing guidelines, such as DELBI and AGREE II, rapid-assessment instruments are a convenient tool for gaining a quick impression of the value of a guideline.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines of high methodological quality make an essential contribution to the quality assurance of medical knowledge. The detailed evaluation of guideline quality is a complex and time-consuming task. The answers to a few key questions generally suffice for an initial, rapid assessment of the quality and utility of a guideline. METHOD: We selectively searched the pertinent literature for guideline-assessing instruments and analyzed selected ones with respect to their target group, purpose, orientation, and comprehensiveness. We identified key questions from brief instruments that can be used to assess guideline quality rapidly. RESULTS: A comparison of ten instruments revealed that most were designed to provide a highly detailed assessment of guideline quality. Four recently developed instruments enable a rough and rapid assessment. They focus, in essence, on four key questions: Was the evidence analyzed systematically? Does the evidence support the recommendations? Is the goal of the guideline formulated, and are the authors named? Is the organization of the guideline easy to follow, and are the recommendations clearly signposted? CONCLUSION: Alongside the comprehensive instruments for assessing guidelines, such as DELBI and AGREE II, rapid-assessment instruments are a convenient tool for gaining a quick impression of the value of a guideline.
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: Christopher J Coroneos; Sophocles H Voineskos; Sylvie D Cornacchi; Charlie H Goldsmith; Teegan A Ignacy; Achilleas Thoma Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Jako Burgers; Richard Grol; Niek Klazinga; Akke van der Bij; Marjukka Mäkelä; Joost Zaat Journal: Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich Date: 2003-02
Authors: Ulrich Siering; Michaela Eikermann; Elke Hausner; Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Edmund A Neugebauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
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