A Comparison of AGREE and RIGHT: which Clinical Practice Guideline Reporting Checklist Should Be Followed by Guideline Developers?

Yao, Xiaomei; Wang, Qi; Kanters, David; Ali, Muhammad Usman; Flórez, Iván D.

doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05508-3

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This issue has been noted for other reporting tools such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 36 , 37 ]. As noted by Yao et al [ 38 ], RIGHT and the AGREE Reporting Checklist both apply to practice guidelines and, although many of the items in these two tools overlap, there are differences, for example, 12 items are listed in RIGHT only, while 4 are unique to AGREE, including evidence selection criteria, updating procedure, facilitators and barriers to application, and monitoring/auditing criteria. Given the importance of the evidence review process in the development of a trustworthy guideline, the RIGHT working group is planning to extend the checklist for reporting systematic reviews in practice guidelines to provide a more detailed examination of each key aspect of reporting [ 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

Wang

Zhou

Chen

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Without adequate reporting of research, valuable time and resources are wasted. In the same vein, adequate reporting of practice guidelines to optimise patient care is equally important. Our study examines the quality of reporting of published WHO guidelines, over time, using the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare) reporting checklist. Methods We examined English-language guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee from inception of the committee in 2007 until 31 December 2017. Pairs of independent, trained reviewers assessed the reporting quality of these guidelines. Descriptive data were summarised with frequencies and percentages. Results We included 182 eligible guidelines. Overall, 25 out of the 34 RIGHT items were reported in 75% or more of the WHO guidelines. The reporting rates improved over time. Further, 90% of the guidelines reported document type in the title. The identification of evidence, the rationale for recommendations and the review process were reported in more than 80% of guidelines. The certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was assessed in 81% of the guidelines assessed. While 82% of guidelines reported funding sources, only 25% mentioned the role of funders. Conclusions WHO guidelines provide adequate reporting of many of the RIGHT items and reporting has improved over time. WHO guidelines compare favourably to guidelines produced by other organisations. However, reporting can be further improved in a number of areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

Wang

Zhou

Chen

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2010, Chen et al from the WHO established the RIGHT checklist (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) which focused on using presentation format. [ 10 ] The RIGHT checklist was developed to assist guideline developers in reporting, journal editors and peer reviewers in decision making, and health care practitioners in understanding and implementing guidelines. [ 11 ] Thus far, the RIGHT checklist has not been used to evaluate clinical guidelines for PCOS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of polycystic ovary syndrome practice guidelines based on the RIGHT checklist

Li¹,

Zhang

et al. 2020

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent endocrine disorder involving hyperandrogenism, menstrual disorder, metabolic problems, infertility, obesity, and acne. The main aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the field of PCOS to provide a reporting specification for this study. Methods: We evaluated the reporting quality of clinical guidelines of PCOS using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist. Nine databases and 3 medical associations were searched. These included Medline, Embase, PubMed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Three medical associations included the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Two independent authors assessed the reporting quality of PCOS CPGs by the RIGHT checklist, and Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability. Results: Twelve PCOS CPGs were included. On average, 20.0 (57.1%) of the 35 items in the RIGHT checklist were reported. All items were fully reported by one of these CPGs. The number of reported items ranged from 10 (28.6%) to 35 (100%). Overall, 16.7%, 66.7%, and 16.7% of included guidelines were of high, medium, and low quality, respectively. The reporting proportions of the 7 domains (i.e., Basic information, Background, Evidence, Recommendations, Reviewand quality assurance, Funding and declaration and management of interests, and Other information) in the RIGHT checklist were 62.0%, 69.1%, 53.3%, 60.7%, 33.3%, 31.2%, and 69.4%, respectively. Conclusions: The evaluation of these CPGs by the RIGHT checklist revealed that the reporting quality varied among guidelines. Low quality items were the processes of evidence decision and the declaration of funding in most included CPGs. Guideline developers should pay more attention to these items to disseminate and implement better guidelines in near future. Trial registration number: registration at PROSPERO CRD42020163435

show abstract

“…The quality of CPGs about gout and hyperuricemia were assessed before with AGREE II [5], whereas AGREE II and RIGHT checklist had unique items by themselves [16]; the RIGHT checklist added new and detailed items that AGREE II lacked. We assessed reporting quality of CPGs in the eld of gout and hyperuricemia, using the RIGHT checklist in our study, to help guideline developers better standardizing the reporting quality of future CPGs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RIGHT tool (supplementary material or http://www.right-statement.org) was used to evaluate the eligibility guidelines included in this study. The tool consists of 22 key items and 35 sub-items, which are divided into the following seven areas: Basic information (items 1-4), Background (items 5-9), Evidence (items [10][11][12], Recommendations (items [13][14][15], Review and quality assurance (items [16][17], Funding and declaration and management of interests (items [18][19], and Other information (items [20][21][22]. Each item was independently scored by two researchers, and most of the items were graded dichotomously, as "reported" (Y) or "unreported" (N).…”

Section: Reporting Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding Gout and Hyperuricemia According to the Right Checklist

Wang

Luo²,

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009–2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.Methods We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wan Fang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for relevant guidelines. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism) (EULAR). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Medlive and Google Scholar. Results Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%), only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (Basic information, Background, Evidence, Recommendations, Review and quality assurance, Funding and declaration and management of interests, and Other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6% 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.Conclusion The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.

show abstract

A Comparison of AGREE and RIGHT: which Clinical Practice Guideline Reporting Checklist Should Be Followed by Guideline Developers?

Cited by 32 publications

References 5 publications

Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

Reporting quality of polycystic ovary syndrome practice guidelines based on the RIGHT checklist

Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding Gout and Hyperuricemia According to the Right Checklist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About