Search

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.)

Background: The AGREE II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within six domains. AGREE II also includes two overall assessments (overall guideline quality, recommendation for use). Our aim was to investigate how strongly the 23 AGREE II items influence the two overall assessments., Methods: An online survey of authors of publications on guideline appraisals with AGREE II and guideline users from a German scientific network was conducted between 10th February 2015 and 30th March 2015. Participants were asked to rate the influence of the AGREE II items on a Likert scale (0 = no influence to 5 = very strong influence). The frequencies of responses and their dispersion were presented descriptively., Results: Fifty-eight of the 376 persons contacted (15.4%) participated in the survey and the data of the 51 respondents with prior knowledge of AGREE II were analysed. Items 7-12 of Domain 3 (rigour of development) and both items of Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In addition, Items 15-17 (clarity of presentation) had a strong influence on the recommendation for use. Great variations were shown for the other items. The main limitation of the survey is the low response rate., Conclusions: In guideline appraisals using AGREE II, items representing rigour of guideline development and editorial independence seem to have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In order to ensure a transparent approach to reaching the overall assessments, we suggest the inclusion of a recommendation in the AGREE II user manual on how to consider item and domain scores. For instance, the manual could include an a-priori weighting of those items and domains that should have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. The relevance of these assessments within AGREE II could thereby be further specified.

Introduction: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments., Materials and Methods: A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: "yes", "yes, with modifications", "no") was examined using a multinomial regression model., Results: 118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 ("yes" vs. "no") and Domains 3 and 5 ("yes, with modifications" vs. "no")., Conclusions: The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools., Methods: Among others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items., Results: We identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively., Conclusions: Most guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Background: Disease Management Programmes (DMPs) are structured treatment programmes for chronic diseases. The DMP requirements are primarily derived from evidence-based guidelines. DMPs are regularly revised to ensure that they reflect current best practice and medical knowledge. The aim of this study was to assess the need for updating the German DMP module on heart failure by comparing it to relevant guidelines and identifying recommendations that should be revised., Methods: We systematically searched for clinical guidelines on heart failure published in German, English or French, and extracted relevant guideline recommendations. All included guidelines were assessed for methodological quality. To identify revision needs in the DMP, we performed a synoptic analysis of the extracted guideline recommendations and DMP requirements., Results: 27 guidelines were included. The extracted recommendations covered all aspects of the management of heart failure. The comparison of guideline recommendations with DMP requirements showed that, overall, guideline recommendations were more detailed than DMP requirements, and that the guidelines covered topics not included in the DMP module., Conclusions: The DMP module is largely consistent with current guidelines on heart failure. We did not identify any need for significant revision of the DMP requirements. However, some specific recommendations of the DMP module could benefit from revision., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)