{"title":"Quality evaluation of French guidelines in primary care infectious disease: An AGREE II assessment.","authors":"Kenza Akhamlich, Eulalie Gillet-Lecourt, Mikaël Bouchard, Rémy Boussageon","doi":"10.1111/jep.14145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Antibiotic prescription, its nature and its duration are a very common decision-making situation in primary care practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are regularly emitted by various organisations on this topic.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>Our goal is to run a quality appraisal of the current French guidelines, for the most common primary care infectious pathologies.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We collected all primary care CPGs that are currently prevailing in France through a systematic review of the french website Antibioclic®. For each of these guidelines, a quality assessment was run by 3 independent reviewers, by means of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II instrument. The main outcome was a 'reliability score', defined as the sum of the scores in domains 'rigour of development' and 'editorial independence'. To be considered 'reliable', the CPG had to reach a 60% threshold in these two domains. Secondary outcomes were as follows: global quality score of CPGs, number and ratio of CPGs for which a systematic review has been conducted during its conception.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the 43 CPGs that have been assessed, none reached the 60%-threshold as to the reliability score. Only one CPG (2.33%) gets an over-60% quality assessment in the domain of rigour of development (D3), whereas three CPGs (6.98%) reach this threshold in the domain of editorial independence (D6). One CPG (2.33%) met the quality threshold of 60% as to overall assessment. Rigour of development and editorial independence are the domains that obtained the lowest average score, respectively, 11% and 21%. Overall assessment received an average score of 29%. A systematic review of the literature was mentioned for 10 CPGs (23.26%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a lack of quality in the development process of the current French guidelines in primary care infectiology. This process should be reconsidered, with higher insistence as to its quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale: Antibiotic prescription, its nature and its duration are a very common decision-making situation in primary care practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are regularly emitted by various organisations on this topic.
Aims and objectives: Our goal is to run a quality appraisal of the current French guidelines, for the most common primary care infectious pathologies.
Method: We collected all primary care CPGs that are currently prevailing in France through a systematic review of the french website Antibioclic®. For each of these guidelines, a quality assessment was run by 3 independent reviewers, by means of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II instrument. The main outcome was a 'reliability score', defined as the sum of the scores in domains 'rigour of development' and 'editorial independence'. To be considered 'reliable', the CPG had to reach a 60% threshold in these two domains. Secondary outcomes were as follows: global quality score of CPGs, number and ratio of CPGs for which a systematic review has been conducted during its conception.
Results: Over the 43 CPGs that have been assessed, none reached the 60%-threshold as to the reliability score. Only one CPG (2.33%) gets an over-60% quality assessment in the domain of rigour of development (D3), whereas three CPGs (6.98%) reach this threshold in the domain of editorial independence (D6). One CPG (2.33%) met the quality threshold of 60% as to overall assessment. Rigour of development and editorial independence are the domains that obtained the lowest average score, respectively, 11% and 21%. Overall assessment received an average score of 29%. A systematic review of the literature was mentioned for 10 CPGs (23.26%).
Conclusion: There is a lack of quality in the development process of the current French guidelines in primary care infectiology. This process should be reconsidered, with higher insistence as to its quality.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.