What makes a good guideline? - A systematic review and analysis of 120 clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marina L Fotteler, Thomas D Kocar, Jana Willems, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, Christoph Leinert, Dhayana Dallmeier, Clara Hertneck, Michael Denkinger
{"title":"What makes a good guideline? - A systematic review and analysis of 120 clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool.","authors":"Marina L Fotteler, Thomas D Kocar, Jana Willems, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, Christoph Leinert, Dhayana Dallmeier, Clara Hertneck, Michael Denkinger","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) translate evidence into actionable recommendations to enhance care quality, improve clinical outcomes, reduce treatment variations, and make healthcare delivery more cost-effective. CPGs primarily aid healthcare practitioners but are also used by patients, policymakers, and organizations. The study aim was to assess CPG quality using the AGREE II instrument and to identify AGREE II items and domains that influence the overall assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline and eight CPG databases were searched for guidelines applicable to older patients (≥60 years, frail, or with dementia/delirium) in acute orthopedic/traumatological settings, published in English or German since January 1st, 2016, and employing an evidence appraisal. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers using Covidence. AGREE II assessments were conducted across all 23 items in six domains by three reviewers with different professional backgrounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's r correlation matrix, variance inflation factor (VIF), univariable and multivariable regression (non-negative least squares), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Significance was set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 CPGs have been appraised, reaching a mean overall rating of 4.35 (±1.13). Most guidelines received an overall rating of five (n=40, 33.33%), one guideline received an overall rating of one (0.8%). Using a standardized evidence rating framework (e.g. GRADE) is significantly associated with a better overall rating (p<0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that items 9, 12, and 15 had the highest influence on the overall AGREE II rating. Domain 6 (editorial independence) did not have an influence on the overall rating in a multivariable analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Methodological rigor, particularly the use of a standardized evidence rating framework, is essential for a good overall AGREE II rating and thus for high-quality CPGs. The results from this analysis can assist different stakeholders who also conduct AGREE II appraisals, develop CPGs, or are charged with implementing CPG recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111830"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111830","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) translate evidence into actionable recommendations to enhance care quality, improve clinical outcomes, reduce treatment variations, and make healthcare delivery more cost-effective. CPGs primarily aid healthcare practitioners but are also used by patients, policymakers, and organizations. The study aim was to assess CPG quality using the AGREE II instrument and to identify AGREE II items and domains that influence the overall assessment.

Methods: Medline and eight CPG databases were searched for guidelines applicable to older patients (≥60 years, frail, or with dementia/delirium) in acute orthopedic/traumatological settings, published in English or German since January 1st, 2016, and employing an evidence appraisal. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers using Covidence. AGREE II assessments were conducted across all 23 items in six domains by three reviewers with different professional backgrounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's r correlation matrix, variance inflation factor (VIF), univariable and multivariable regression (non-negative least squares), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Significance was set at p<0.05.

Results: A total of 120 CPGs have been appraised, reaching a mean overall rating of 4.35 (±1.13). Most guidelines received an overall rating of five (n=40, 33.33%), one guideline received an overall rating of one (0.8%). Using a standardized evidence rating framework (e.g. GRADE) is significantly associated with a better overall rating (p<0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that items 9, 12, and 15 had the highest influence on the overall AGREE II rating. Domain 6 (editorial independence) did not have an influence on the overall rating in a multivariable analysis.

Conclusion: Methodological rigor, particularly the use of a standardized evidence rating framework, is essential for a good overall AGREE II rating and thus for high-quality CPGs. The results from this analysis can assist different stakeholders who also conduct AGREE II appraisals, develop CPGs, or are charged with implementing CPG recommendations.

什么是好的指导方针?-使用AGREE II工具对120项临床实践指南进行系统回顾和分析。
临床实践指南(cpg)将证据转化为可操作的建议,以提高护理质量,改善临床结果,减少治疗变化,并使医疗保健服务更具成本效益。cpg主要帮助医疗保健从业者,但也被患者、政策制定者和组织使用。研究目的是使用AGREE II工具评估CPG质量,并确定影响总体评估的AGREE II项目和领域。方法:检索Medline和8个CPG数据库,检索2016年1月1日以来以英语或德语出版的适用于急性骨科/创伤科老年患者(≥60岁、体弱或痴呆/谵妄)的指南,并采用证据评估。标题、摘要和全文由两名审稿人使用covid - ence进行独立筛选。三名具有不同专业背景的审稿人对六个领域的所有23个项目进行了评估。采用描述性统计、Mann-Whitney U检验、Pearson’s r相关矩阵、方差膨胀因子(VIF)、单变量和多变量回归(非负最小二乘)、类内相关系数(ICC)对数据进行分析。结果:共评估了120个cpg,平均总评分为4.35(±1.13)。大多数指南的总评分为5分(n=40, 33.33%),有一条指南的总评分为1分(0.8%)。使用标准化证据评级框架(例如GRADE)与更好的总体评级显著相关(pConclusion:方法严谨性,特别是使用标准化证据评级框架,对于良好的总体AGREE II评级和高质量cpg至关重要。这一分析的结果可以帮助不同的利益相关者也进行AGREE II评估,制定CPG,或负责实施CPG建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信