A critical appraisal of chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorders clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

Sekercioğlu, Nigar; Khalifah, Reem Al; Ewusie, Joycelyne; Elias, Rosilene M.; Thabane, Lehana; Busse, Jason W.; Akhtar–Danesh, Noori; Iorio, Alfonso; Isayama, Tetsuya; Martínez, Juan Pablo Díaz; Flórez, Iván D.; Guyatt, Gordon

doi:10.1007/s11255-016-1436-3

Cited by 34 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar situation was reported by Armstrong et al in a recent appraisal of osteoporosis guidelines, with domain 6 presenting with the lowest score (45%) [ 23 ]. The score of this domain was low in several other studies [ 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 ], with few exceptions [ 26 ]. Regarding “Editorial Independence” evaluation, the AGREE II considers two items related to funding bodies or potential authors’ competing interests that may have influenced the guideline content [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In addition, the total score (expressed as mean ± standard deviation, SD) of guidelines and domains was calculated. Domain scores were categorised as good (≥ 80%), acceptable (60–79,9%), low (40–59,9%), or very low (<40%), similar to a previous similar paper [ 24 ]. Data extraction, collection, and scoring were done by a fifth independent reviewer (LMS) with 14 years of experience in musculoskeletal US and scientific research, using a Microsoft Excel® 2016 spreadsheet.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesOur aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US) for adults.MethodsBetween June and July 2016, we conducted an online search for MSK-US guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II tool. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsFive guidelines were included in this appraisal. They were published between 2001 and 2014. Our appraisal showed intermediate results, with four out of five guidelines scoring “average” as overall quality. Domain 1 (scope and purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 71.1% ± 18.7%). Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the lowest score (total score = 26.3% ± 19.3%). Interobserver agreement was very good for all the evaluated guidelines (ICC ranged between 0.932 and 0.956).ConclusionsOverall, quality of MSK-US guidelines ranges from low to average when evaluated using the AGREE II tool. The editorial independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.Main messages • Four of five guidelines on MSK-US had an average quality level. • Scope/purpose had the highest score (71.1% ± 18.7%). • Editorial independence had the lowest score (26.3% ± 19.3%). • Interobserver agreement was very good (ranges: 0.932–0.956). Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0563-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Armstrong et al reported similar results (45%) after conducting an evaluation of osteoporosis guidelines focusing on physical activity and safe movement [18]. This domain scored low in several other studies [19, 20, 22, 23], with few exceptions [21]. According to AGREE II, the evaluation of “editorial independence” considers two aspects related to funding bodies or potential authors’ competing interests that may influence the guideline content.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In particular, AGREE II does not evaluate the degree of consistency between the guideline recommendations and the reported evidence [19]. Also, AGREE II does not specifically evaluate the clinical content, a limitation that is common to several appraisal tools [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the total score (expressed as mean ± standard deviation, SD) of guidelines and domains was calculated. Domain scores were categorised as good (≥80%), acceptable (60–79%), low (40–59%) or very low (<40%), similar to a previous similar paper [19]. Data collection, extraction and scoring were performed by a fifth independent reviewer (LMS) with 12 years’ experience in in musculoskeletal radiology and scientific research, using a Microsoft Excel® 2016 spreadsheet.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesDual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults.MethodsBetween June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores.ResultsFour out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).ConclusionsOverall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.Main messages• Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%).• Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%).• Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%).• Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Systematic evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines intended for pharmacists

Beckett

Linn

Tellor

et al. 2018

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation version II (AGREE II) tool is a validated instrument designed to assess the methodological rigor and transparency of clinical practice guidelines. Objective The primary objective of this study was to determine the quality of clinical practice guidelines of which pharmacists are indexed as an intended user using AGREE II. Methods AGREE II was used to assess for methodological rigor and transparency in a systematic evaluation. The National Guideline Clearinghouse was used to identify guidelines published from 2010 to 2016, focused on treatment, and indexed to pharmacists as potential intended users. Each guideline was reviewed according to AGREE II by 3 independent reviewers: 1 clinical specialist pharmacist, 1 drug information pharmacist, and 1 student pharmacist, with domain and item scores calculated according to the AGREE II User Manual. Results Of 140 identified guidelines, mean AGREE II domain scores ranged from 54.8 ± 20.1% (Domain 5, Applicability) to 86.5 ± 9.0% (Domain 4, Clarity of Presentation). Mean AGREE II item scores ranged from 38.2 ± 34.4% (Item 5, “The views and preferences of the target population have been sought”) to 91.4 ± 11.2% (Item 17, “Key recommendations are easily identifiable”). For Item 24 (“Rate the overall quality of this guideline”), the mean score was 71.5 ± 17.8% (median: 75.0%). For Item 25 (“I would recommend this guideline for use”), the most common responses were “yes, with modifications” (n = 66, 47.1%) and “yes” (n = 57, 40.7%). Conclusion Guidelines intended for pharmacists were generally high quality, with opportunity for improvement in areas related to applicability.

show abstract

A critical appraisal of chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorders clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

Abstract: Most guidelines assessing CKD-MBD suffer from serious shortcomings using AGREE criteria although limitations with respect to AGREE criteria do not necessarily lead to inappropriate recommendations.

Cited by 34 publications

References 45 publications

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

Systematic evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines intended for pharmacists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About