Suhaym Mubeen1, Kunal Patel2, Ziba Cunningham3, Niamh O'Rourke3, Nikolaos Pandis4, Martyn T Cobourne1, Jadbinder Seehra5. 1. Department of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute, Floor 22, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute, Floor 22, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jadbinder.seehra@nhs.net.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of published dental clinical guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Online searching of a wide range of organisations (national and International) was undertaken to identify dental clinical practice guidelines published between 2000 and 2014. The quality of each included guideline was assessed in relation to the AGREE II instrument by four assessors independently. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. Descriptive statistics and both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 162 guidelines were identified. The overall mean quality score was 51.9% (SD 13.3). There was variation in the reporting quality of individual domains with both Applicability (20.4%) and Editorial Independence (34.25%) poorly reported. Variation between the overall quality scores for guidelines produced by different dental specialities was evident. The quality of guidelines improved per publication year (β=0.76, 95% CI: 0.26, 1.26, p=0.003). Guidelines based on formal evidence (β=19.94, 95% CI: 15.25, 24.64, p=0.001) achieved higher quality scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, the quality of clinical dental practice guidelines is suboptimal. There is variation in the overall quality, reporting of individual items and domains of the AGREE II instrument between different dental speciality clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines based on formal evidence achieved higher quality scores. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the variation in the quality of dental clinical guidelines in particular related to methodological rigour. The use of formal evidence may be a useful indicator of their quality prior to their implementation.
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of published dental clinical guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Online searching of a wide range of organisations (national and International) was undertaken to identify dental clinical practice guidelines published between 2000 and 2014. The quality of each included guideline was assessed in relation to the AGREE II instrument by four assessors independently. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. Descriptive statistics and both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 162 guidelines were identified. The overall mean quality score was 51.9% (SD 13.3). There was variation in the reporting quality of individual domains with both Applicability (20.4%) and Editorial Independence (34.25%) poorly reported. Variation between the overall quality scores for guidelines produced by different dental specialities was evident. The quality of guidelines improved per publication year (β=0.76, 95% CI: 0.26, 1.26, p=0.003). Guidelines based on formal evidence (β=19.94, 95% CI: 15.25, 24.64, p=0.001) achieved higher quality scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, the quality of clinical dental practice guidelines is suboptimal. There is variation in the overall quality, reporting of individual items and domains of the AGREE II instrument between different dental speciality clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines based on formal evidence achieved higher quality scores. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the variation in the quality of dental clinical guidelines in particular related to methodological rigour. The use of formal evidence may be a useful indicator of their quality prior to their implementation.
Authors: Hugo Fontan Köhler; Hisham Mehanna; Jatin P Shah; Alvaro Sanabria; Johannes Fagan; Moni A Kuriakose; C Rene Leemans; Brian O'Sullivan; Suren Krishnan; Luiz P Kowalski Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Michael J Braun; Thaddaeus Rauneker; Jens Dreyhaupt; Thomas K Hoffmann; Ralph G Luthardt; Bernd Schmitz; Florian Dammann; Meinrad Beer Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Jessica Arieta-Miranda; Abad Salcedo Alcaychahua; Gary Pereda Santos; Manuel Chávez Sevillano; Rosa Lara Verástegui; Daniel Blanco Victorio; Gilmer Torres Ramos Journal: Heliyon Date: 2020-12-09