Jin K Kim1, Michael E Chua2, Jessica M Ming2, Joana Dos Santos3, Elke Zani-Ruttenstock4, Alanna Marson5, Mark Bayley6, Martin A Koyle3. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: jjk.kim@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of General and Thoracic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Hospital Library and Archives, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Brain and Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Limited efforts have been made in assessing the qualities of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on cryptorchidism (UDT). This appraisal aims to determine the quality of recent CPGs on the management of UDT. METHODS: After systematic literature search, all English-based CPGs providing recommendations for the management of UDT from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation) instrument, eligible CPGs were independently appraised by 5 reviewers. Domain scores were calculated and summarized. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) was used to assess for interrater reliability. RESULTS: Five CPGs from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), American Urological Association (AUA), British Association of Pediatric Surgeons/British Association of Urologic Surgeons (BAPS/BAUS), Canadian Urological Association (CUA), and European Association of Urology/European Society for Pediatric Urology (EAU/ESPU) were assessed. There was a solid agreement (ICC: 0.749) among the 5 reviewers (p<0.001). Most recommendations for diagnostic and treatment approaches were consistent across CPGs. For most guidelines, the domains of 'clarity of presentation,' 'scope and purpose,' 'stakeholder involvement,' and 'rigor of development' were high, while 'applicability' was low. CONCLUSION: Most guidelines on UDT score high in the AGREE II domains and have consistent recommendations. To improve the 'applicability' domain, future guidelines should improve on aspects that facilitate implementation of the recommendations. TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (based on the lowest level of evidence utilized by the assessed guidelines).
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Limited efforts have been made in assessing the qualities of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on cryptorchidism (UDT). This appraisal aims to determine the quality of recent CPGs on the management of UDT. METHODS: After systematic literature search, all English-based CPGs providing recommendations for the management of UDT from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation) instrument, eligible CPGs were independently appraised by 5 reviewers. Domain scores were calculated and summarized. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) was used to assess for interrater reliability. RESULTS: Five CPGs from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), American Urological Association (AUA), British Association of Pediatric Surgeons/British Association of Urologic Surgeons (BAPS/BAUS), Canadian Urological Association (CUA), and European Association of Urology/European Society for Pediatric Urology (EAU/ESPU) were assessed. There was a solid agreement (ICC: 0.749) among the 5 reviewers (p<0.001). Most recommendations for diagnostic and treatment approaches were consistent across CPGs. For most guidelines, the domains of 'clarity of presentation,' 'scope and purpose,' 'stakeholder involvement,' and 'rigor of development' were high, while 'applicability' was low. CONCLUSION: Most guidelines on UDT score high in the AGREE II domains and have consistent recommendations. To improve the 'applicability' domain, future guidelines should improve on aspects that facilitate implementation of the recommendations. TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (based on the lowest level of evidence utilized by the assessed guidelines).