Critical appraisal of international clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Education (AGREE) II tool: A systematic review

O’Donoghue, Katriona

doi:10.26226/morressier.58736690d462b8029238401f

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One guideline reached an “average” level of quality, while the remaining two scored a “low” level of quality. Domains in which the highest percentage score was obtained were domain 1 “Scope and purpose” and domain 4 “Clarity of presentation” since aims, target users, and key recommendations were clearly specified in all papers; this is in line with results obtained in previous evaluations, probably because these issues are essential for guideline drafting and therefore properly considered. On the basis of AGREE II items, the quality in these domains could be further improved specifying timing for follow‐up, stratifying recommendations on the basis of clinical features (eg, HPV status), or proposing alternative options for the use of different imaging techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of the quality of head and neck cancer imaging guidelines using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDiagnostic imaging guidelines are increasingly embraced in oncologic imaging in order to improve examinations appropriateness and technical quality. The usefulness of guidelines employment in clinical practice is dramatically related to the quality of the guidelines themselves. However, an extreme variability in guidelines’ quality may occur. Following a European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM) initiative, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of the available guidelines regarding head and neck cancer (HNC) imaging.MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify imaging guidelines focused on HNC. Selected guidelines were evaluated by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation version 2.0 (AGREE II) tool, which comprises 23 key items, rated on a 7‐point scale (1—strongly disagree to 7—strongly agree) and organized within six domains. For each domain, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the agreement among appraisers’ scores.ResultsAfter literature search, three guidelines were selected and evaluated. One guideline scored “average” as overall quality, while the remaining two scored a “low” overall quality. The highest result (total score = 75.0% ± 19.3%) was obtained in domain 4 (Clarity of presentation) while the lowest (total score = 27.1% ± 4.2%) in domain 6 (Editorial independence). ICC analysis showed a very good agreement (range: 0.932‐0.961) among the four appraisers.ConclusionsOur results showed a heterogeneous quality of existing guidelines in HNC imaging. Issues raised from this appraisal should be considered when developing future guidelines on HNC imaging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of the quality of head and neck cancer imaging guidelines using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, CPGs require not only high‐quality theoretical content, but also clinical practicality. Therefore, low scores in ‘applicability’ might waste time and resources, make the clinical outcomes compromised and affect a clinician's confidence 14 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, external review and update procedure are also important. The external reviewers who are outside the working group can make recommendations more reliable, and update procedure can ensure recommendations are valid, reliable and up to date, in case of wasting time and resources 14 . In order to ensure that guidelines are more rigorous, developers need to pay more attention to this part.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines for pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis using the AGREE II instrument

Yang

et al. 2020

J Clin Pharm Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is known and Objective Pneumocystis jiroveci (P jiroveci) is an important opportunistic fungus and causes pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). By using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of PJP prophylaxis clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and to help develop, update or improve guideline. Methods A search was conducted for PJP prophylaxis CPGs using PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang data, VIP Database, Google and guideline websites (until 18 January 2020). Data extraction and quality assessment were independently assessed by two appraisers, and the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater reliability. The specific recommendations were evaluated based on the quality results. Results and Discussion A total of 6 CPGs were included. The highest median scores were in the clarity of presentation domain (92%), and the lowest median scores were in the applicability domain (25%). The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO) and Renal Association (RA)/British Transplantation Society (BTS) CPGs were strongly recommended. The specific recommendations were inconsistent, such as the dose, frequency and duration. What is New and Conclusion The KDIGO and RA/BTS CPGs were strongly recommended. Not only the quality of the PJP prophylaxis CPGs needs to be improved during the development progress, but also the specific recommendations should be further refined.

show abstract

“…Good quality guidelines recommend practice based upon the best available evidence via a robust guideline development process. Recent work has demonstrated that the quality of international guidelines in renal transplantation is variable, with guidelines lacking in robust developmental methodology which may have an impact on their uptake in real clinical practice (18). It is therefore important that clinical decisions do not just rely on guideline-based CDSS, but also take into account local practice and clinical experience as part of the live donor MDT process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Clinical Decision Support System for Living Kidney Donor Assessment Based on National Guidelines

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Critical appraisal of international clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Education (AGREE) II tool: A systematic review

Abstract: KO, RR, SK, JO, PM and LP were involved in the concept and design of the systematic review. KO and LP designed the search strategy. KO and RR screened search results for relevant full-texts and these were checked by LP. KO and RR performed the data extraction.

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

A critical appraisal of the quality of head and neck cancer imaging guidelines using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

A critical appraisal of the quality of head and neck cancer imaging guidelines using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

Critical appraisal of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines for pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis using the AGREE II instrument

Development of a Clinical Decision Support System for Living Kidney Donor Assessment Based on National Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About