Literature DB >> 29288133

Systematic review of current guideline appraisals performed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II instrument-a third of AGREE II users apply a cut-off for guideline quality.

Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer1, Ulrich Siering2, Edmund A M Neugebauer3, Ulrike Lampert2, Michaela Eikermann4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II users apply a cut-off based on standardized domain scores or overall guideline quality to distinguish between high- and low-quality guidelines, as well as to investigate which criteria they use to generate this cut-off and which type of cut-off they apply. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, and the HTA-database for German- and English-language studies appraising guidelines with AGREE II. Information on cut-offs was extracted and analyzed descriptively.
RESULTS: We identified 118 relevant publications. Thirty-nine (33%) used a cut-off, of which 24 (62%) used a 2-step and 13 (33%) used a 3-step approach. The cut-off for high quality lay between 50% and 70% (2-step) and 60% and 83% (3-step) of the highest possible rating. Twenty-four (62%) publications applied a cut-off based on standardized domain scores and 7 (18%) based on overall guideline quality. Eleven (28%) applied cut-offs to derive the recommendation for guideline use.
CONCLUSION: A third of AGREE II users apply a cut-off to distinguish between high- and low-quality guidelines, often without clearly describing how the cut-off is generated. Many users might welcome a clear distinction between high- and low-quality guidelines; specifying a cut-off for this purpose might be useful.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  AGREE instrument; Clinical; Methodological guideline appraisal; Methodological quality; Systematic reviews; practice guidelines; practice guidelines as topic

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29288133     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  19 in total

Review 1.  A Systematic Review of the Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology.

Authors:  Federico Romano; Giovanni Di Lorenzo; Guglielmo Stabile; Mariateresa Mirandola; Stefano Restaino; Patrizia Ianniello; Giuseppe Mirenda; Giuseppe Ricci
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 6.575

2.  More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

Authors:  Silvia Gianola; Silvia Bargeri; Michela Cinquini; Valerio Iannicelli; Roberto Meroni; Greta Castellini
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 4.612

3.  Guidelines informing counseling on female age-related fertility decline: a systematic review.

Authors:  Emma Trawick; Jillian Pecoriello; Gwendolyn Quinn; Kara N Goldman
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Qianrui Li; Wenxiu Hou; Ling Li; Minggang Su; Yan Ren; Wen Wang; Kang Zou; Rong Tian; Xin Sun
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Pharmacological treatment of depression: A systematic review comparing clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Authors:  Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel; Daniela Oliveira de Melo; Renério Fráguas; Nathália Celini Leite-Santos; Rafael Augusto Mantovani da Silva; Eliane Ribeiro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Management of overweight and obesity in primary care-A systematic overview of international evidence-based guidelines.

Authors:  Thomas Semlitsch; Florian L Stigler; Klaus Jeitler; Karl Horvath; Andrea Siebenhofer
Journal:  Obes Rev       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 9.213

7.  Integrating approaches for quality guideline development in LactaMap, an online lactation care support system.

Authors:  Melinda Boss; Jennifer Turner; Patrick Boss; Peter Hartmann; Douglas Pritchard; Rhonda Clifford
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Yali Liu; Yuan Zhang; Shu Wang; Ling Liu; Gang Che; Jiahui Niu; Yuan Ma
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 2.125

9.  International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

Authors:  Yasser S Amer; Maher A Titi; Mohammad W Godah; Hayfaa A Wahabi; Layal Hneiny; Manal Mohamed Abouelkheir; Muddathir H Hamad; Ghada Metwally ElGohary; Mohamed Ben Hamouda; Hella Ouertatani; Pamela Velasquez-Salazar; Jorge Acosta-Reyes; Samia M Alhabib; Samia Ahmed Esmaeil; Zbys Fedorowicz; Ailing Zhang; Zhe Chen; Sarah Jayne Liptrott; Niccolò Frungillo; Amr A Jamal; Sami A Almustanyir; Newman Ugochukwu Dieyi; John Powell; Katrina J Hon; Rasmieh Alzeidan; Majduldeen Azzo; Sara Zambrano-Rico; Paulina Ramirez-Jaramillo; Ivan D Florez
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-11-14       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review.

Authors:  Marta Maes-Carballo; Luciano Mignini; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 4.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.