Shingai Machingaidze1, Babalwa Zani2, Amber Abrams2, Solange Durao2, Quinette Louw3, Tamara Kredo2, Karen Grimmer4, Taryn Young5. 1. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa; European and Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership (EDCTP)-Africa Office, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: shingai.machingaidze@mrc.ac.za. 2. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa. 3. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa; Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa. 4. Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa; International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE), City East Campus, University of South Australia, P4-18 North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia. 5. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Valley, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa; Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care (CEBHC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) development has evolved over the past decade, with greater emphasis now being placed on transparency, rigor of development, and reporting standards. Our evaluation assesses the quality of the guideline development processes and reporting of selected South African primary care (PC) CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: CPGs were iteratively identified by two authors, seeking CPGs reflecting common conditions with which patients present in South African PC settings. CPGs could address diagnosis, treatment, or clinical management. Each CPG was independently appraised by two reviewers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guideline REsearch and Evaluation) quality checklist, and the weighted scoring algorithm to calculate scores for the six domains. RESULTS: We included 16 CPGs from the National Department of Health and clinical professional associations. Overall, the domains of rigor of development, editorial independence, and applicability had the lowest median scores (0, 4%, and 13%, respectively). Clarity of presentation reported the highest median score (69%), with seven CPGs scoring above 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of the selected South African PC CPGs was generally poor to moderate. Concerted efforts should be made to ensure that transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date evidence assessments are conducted and well reported by CPG developers.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) development has evolved over the past decade, with greater emphasis now being placed on transparency, rigor of development, and reporting standards. Our evaluation assesses the quality of the guideline development processes and reporting of selected South African primary care (PC) CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: CPGs were iteratively identified by two authors, seeking CPGs reflecting common conditions with which patients present in South African PC settings. CPGs could address diagnosis, treatment, or clinical management. Each CPG was independently appraised by two reviewers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guideline REsearch and Evaluation) quality checklist, and the weighted scoring algorithm to calculate scores for the six domains. RESULTS: We included 16 CPGs from the National Department of Health and clinical professional associations. Overall, the domains of rigor of development, editorial independence, and applicability had the lowest median scores (0, 4%, and 13%, respectively). Clarity of presentation reported the highest median score (69%), with seven CPGs scoring above 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of the selected South African PC CPGs was generally poor to moderate. Concerted efforts should be made to ensure that transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date evidence assessments are conducted and well reported by CPG developers.
Authors: Michael McCaul; Mike Clarke; Stevan R Bruijns; Peter W Hodkinson; Ben de Waal; Jennifer Pigoga; Lee A Wallis; Taryn Young Journal: Afr J Emerg Med Date: 2018-10-24
Authors: Tiago S Jesus; Michel D Landry; Helen Hoenig; Yi Zeng; Sureshkumar Kamalakannan; Raquel R Britto; Nana Pogosova; Olga Sokolova; Karen Grimmer; Quinette A Louw Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390