The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in psychology: A pilot study of the guidelines developed by the Ordre des Psychologues du Québec.

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantina Stamoulos ◽  
Andrea Reyes ◽  
Lyane Trepanier ◽  
Martin Drapeau
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. e0181927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Ross ◽  
Justin Rankin ◽  
Jason Beaman ◽  
Kelly Murray ◽  
Philip Sinnett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Opioid Use

scholarly journals Assessment of the methodological quality of local clinical practice guidelines on the identification and management of gestational diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e027285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Daley ◽  
Graham Hitman ◽  
Norman Fenton ◽  
Scott McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Agree Ii

ObjectiveGestational diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, and it is important that well-written clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the methodological quality of hospital-based CPGs on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.DesignWe conducted an assessment of local clinical guidelines in English for gestational diabetes using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) to assess and validate methodological quality.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe sought a representative selection of local CPGs accessible by the internet. Criteria for inclusion were (1) identified as a guideline, (2) written in English, (3) produced by or for the hospital in a Western country, (4) included diagnostic criteria and recommendations concerning gestational diabetes, (5) grounded on evidence-based medicine and (6) accessible over the internet. No more than two CPGs were selected from any single country.ResultsOf the 56 CPGs identified, 7 were evaluated in detail by five reviewers using the standard AGREE II instrument. Interrater variance was calculated, with strong agreement observed for those protocols considered by reviewers as the highest and lowest scoring based on the instrument. CPG results for each of the six AGREE II domains are presented categorically using a 5-point Likert scale. Only one CPG scored above average in five or more of the domains. Overall scores ranged from 91.6 (the strongest) to 50 (the weakest). Significant variation existed in the methodological quality of CPGs, even though they followed the guideline of an advising body. Specifically, appropriate identification of the evidence relied on to inform clinical decision making in CPGs was poor, as was evidence of user involvement in the development of the guideline, resource implications, documentation of competing interests of the guideline development group and evidence of external review.ConclusionsThe limitations described are important considerations for updating current and new CPGs.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for genetic testing in children

Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (52) ◽  
pp. e18521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue-Feng Jiao ◽  
Hai-Long Li ◽  
Liang Cheng ◽  
Chuan Zhang ◽  
Chun-Song Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality

scholarly journals Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun-Yun Wang ◽  
Qiao Huang ◽  
Quan Shen ◽  
Hao Zi ◽  
Bing-Hui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Status Monitoring ◽  
Isolation Management ◽  
Diagnosis Criteria

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations.Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software.Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00–84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78–68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89–75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33–36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29–71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67–26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78–86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00–63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40–62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54–25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00–100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00–77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/– azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued.Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/– azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

Using AGREE II Reporting Checklist to Evaluate the Quality of Tuina Clinical Practice Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Huang ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
Chuyu Huang ◽  
Mingwang Qiu ◽  
Siyi Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

Abstract Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines. Methods Computer searches of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases were conducted to search for published guidelines on Tuina, with a search time frame from database creation to March 2021. Four evaluators independently used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines.Results Eight guidelines related to Tuina were included in this study. The quality of reporting was low in all included guidelines. The highest quality report had a total score of 404 and was rated as "highly recommended". The worst guideline had a final score of 241 and was rated as "not recommended". Overall, 25% of the included guidelines were recommended for clinical use, 37.5% were recommended after revision, and 37.5% were not recommended for use.Conclusion The number of existing Tuina clinical practice guidelines is limited. The methodological quality is low, far from the internationally accepted norms of clinical practice guideline development and reporting. In the future development of Tuina guidelines, emphasis should be placed on the reporting specifications of guidelines and the methodology of guideline development, including the rigor of the guideline development process, the clarity, application, and independence of reporting, to improve the quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, to guide and standardize the clinical practice of Tuina.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document