Montserrat Rabassa1, Sònika Garcia-Ribera Ruiz2, Ivan Solà3, Hector Pardo-Hernandez3, Pablo Alonso-Coello3, Laura Martínez García2. 1. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: mrabassa@santpau.cat. 2. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain. 3. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain; CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe, and map contemporary nutrition guidelines (NGs) from reviews that used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an overview of reviews that systematically assessed the quality of NGs using the AGREE tool. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to February 2018. Two authors independently selected and assessed reviews and extracted data. RESULTS: We included nine evaluations with a total of 67 NGs. The higher median AGREE scores were for the domains "scope and purpose" (80%, Q1-Q3: 59-89%) and "clarity and presentation" (69%, Q1-Q3: 53-89%), while the lower were for "rigor of development" (58%, Q1-Q3: 31-84%), "editorial independence" (53%, Q1-Q3: 19-79%), "stakeholder involvement" (50%, Q1-Q3: 28-72%), and "applicability" (22%, Q1-Q3: 11-50%). The median AGREE overall rating was 5 (Q1-Q3: 4-6), and most were recommended for use (75%; 30/40). Twenty-nine NGs (43.3%; 29/67) scored ≥60% in three or more domains, including "rigor of development" domain. The methodological quality of NGs did not improve over time. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of NGs varies widely, but there is general need for improvement in most AGREE domains. NG developers could incorporate available tools to ensure the development of high-quality NGs.
OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe, and map contemporary nutrition guidelines (NGs) from reviews that used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an overview of reviews that systematically assessed the quality of NGs using the AGREE tool. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to February 2018. Two authors independently selected and assessed reviews and extracted data. RESULTS: We included nine evaluations with a total of 67 NGs. The higher median AGREE scores were for the domains "scope and purpose" (80%, Q1-Q3: 59-89%) and "clarity and presentation" (69%, Q1-Q3: 53-89%), while the lower were for "rigor of development" (58%, Q1-Q3: 31-84%), "editorial independence" (53%, Q1-Q3: 19-79%), "stakeholder involvement" (50%, Q1-Q3: 28-72%), and "applicability" (22%, Q1-Q3: 11-50%). The median AGREE overall rating was 5 (Q1-Q3: 4-6), and most were recommended for use (75%; 30/40). Twenty-nine NGs (43.3%; 29/67) scored ≥60% in three or more domains, including "rigor of development" domain. The methodological quality of NGs did not improve over time. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of NGs varies widely, but there is general need for improvement in most AGREE domains. NG developers could incorporate available tools to ensure the development of high-quality NGs.
Authors: Madelin Siedler; M Hassan Murad; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Philipp Dahm; Reem A Mustafa; Shahnaz Sultan; Rebecca L Morgan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 2.692
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