|
Proportion of Guidelines Meeting Quality Criteria |
||
| Quality Criteria* |
% CPGs where 2 or more appraisers said "yes" |
|
|
|
||
| Items included in Dimension 1: Rigour of Method Development |
||
|
|
||
| 1 |
Is the agency responsible for the development and/or endorsement of the guidelines clearly identified? |
95.2 |
| 2 |
Was funding or other support received for developing the guidelines? |
38.1 |
| 3 |
If funding or other support was received, is there evidence that the potential biases of the funding body(ies) were taken into account? |
14.3 |
| 4 |
Is there a description of the individuals (e.g. professionals, interest groups – including patients) who were involved in the guidelines development group? |
85.7 |
| 5 |
If so, did the group contain representatives of all key disciplines? |
23.8 |
| 6 |
Is there a description of the sources of information used to select the evidence on which the recommendations are based? |
5.0 |
| 7 |
If so, are the sources of information adequate? |
5.0 |
| 8 |
Is there a description of the method(s) used to interpret and assess the strength of the evidence? |
38.1 |
| 9 |
If so, is(are) the method(s) for rating the evidence satisfactory? |
23.5 |
| 10 |
Is there a description of the methods used to formulate the recommendations? |
28.5 |
| 11 |
If so, are the methods satisfactory? |
9.6 |
| 12 |
Is there an indication of how the views of interested parties not on the panel (or the consensus conference participants) were taken into account? |
19.6 |
| 13 |
Is there an explicit link between the major recommendations and the level of supporting evidence? |
28.5 |
| 14 |
Did the guidelines receive an independent external review prior to their publication/release? |
28.6 |
| 15 |
If so, is explicit information given about methods and how comments were addressed? |
0 |
| 16 |
Were the guidelines piloted? |
0 |
| 17 |
If the guidelines were piloted, is explicit information given about the methods used and the results adopted? |
0 |
| 18 |
Is there a mention of a date for reviewing or updating the guideline? |
19.1 |
| 19 |
Is the body responsible for the reviewing and updating clearly identified? |
19.0 |
| 20 |
Overall, have the potential biases of guideline development been adequately dealt with, i.e. have they attempted to minimize the introduction of bias adequately? |
14.3 |
|
|
||
| Items included in Dimension 2: Context and Content |
||
|
|
||
| 21 |
Are the reasons for developing the guidelines clearly stated? |
90.5 |
| 22 |
Are the objectives of the guidelines clearly defined? |
61.9 |
| 23 |
Is there a satisfactory description of the patients to which the guidelines are meant to apply? |
81.0 |
| 24 |
Is there a description of the circumstances (clinical or non-clinical) in which exceptions might be made in using the guidelines? |
28.5 |
| 25 |
Is there an explicit statement of how patient preferences should be taken into account in applying the guidelines? |
14.3 |
| 26 |
Do the guidelines describe the condition to be detected, treated, or prevented in unambiguous terms? |
95.3 |
| 27 |
Are there different possible options for management of the condition clearly stated in the guidelines? |
90.4 |
| 28 |
Are the recommendations clearly presented? |
85.7 |
| 29 |
Is there an adequate description of the health benefits that are likely to be gained from the recommended management? |
76.2 |
| 30 |
Is there an adequate description of the potential harms or risks that may occur as a result of the recommended management? |
61.9 |
| 31 |
Is there an estimate of the costs or expenditures likely to incur from the recommended management? |
33.4 |
| 32 |
Are the recommendations supported by the estimated benefits, harms and costs of the intervention? |
9.6 |
|
|
||
| Items included in Dimension 3: Application |
||
|
|
||
| 33 |
Does the guideline document suggest possible methods for dissemination and implementation? |
9.6 |
| 34 |
Does the guideline document specify criteria for monitoring adherence to the guidelines? |
9.6 |
| 35 |
Does the guideline document identify clear standards or targets for adherence to the guidelines? |
4.8 |
| 36 |
Does the guideline document define measurable outcomes (e.g. health, process, economic, outcomes) that can be monitored? |
0 |
| 37 |
Does the guideline document identify key elements which need to be considered by local guideline groups? |
0 |
|
*Items are presented in the same order as they appear in the appraisal instrument | ||
Cranney et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2002 3:20 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-3-20 |
||