Sofia Tsokani1, Stavros A Antoniou2,3, Irini Moustaki4, Manuel López-Cano5, George A Antoniou6,7, Ivan D Flórez8,9, Gianfranco Silecchia10, Sheraz Markar11, Dimitrios Stefanidis12, Giovanni Zanninotto11, Nader K Francis13, George H Hanna11, Salvador Morales-Conde14, Hendrik Jaap Bonjer15, Melissa C Brouwers8, Dimitrios Mavridis16,17. 1. Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, 451 10, Ioannina, Greece. 2. Surgical Department, Mediterranean Hospital of Cyprus, Limassol, Cyprus. 3. Medical School, European University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. 4. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. 5. Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall D'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 8. Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 9. Department of Pediatrics, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. 10. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotecnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 11. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK. 12. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA. 13. Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK. 14. Unit of Innovation in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla, Spain. 15. Department of General Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 16. Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, 451 10, Ioannina, Greece. dimimavridis@googlemail.com. 17. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. dimimavridis@googlemail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines. METHODS: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines. METHODS: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.
Keywords:
AGREE II; Clinical practice guidelines; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Surgery
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; Sofia Tsokani; Dimitrios Mavridis; Manuel López-Cano; George A Antoniou; Dimitrios Stefanidis; Nader K Francis; Neil Smart; Filip E Muysoms; Salvador Morales-Conde; Hendrik Jaap Bonjer; Melissa C Brouwers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; Ivan D Florez; Sheraz Markar; Patricia Logullo; Manuel López-Cano; Gianfranco Silecchia; George A Antoniou; Sofia Tsokani; Dimitrios Mavridis; Melissa Brouwers Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Patricia Logullo; Ivan D Florez; George A Antoniou; Sheraz Markar; Manuel López-Cano; Gianfranco Silecchia; Sofia Tsokani; Dimitrios Mavridis; Melissa Brouwers; Stavros A Antoniou Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 6.866