Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments
Open Access
- 30 March 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 12 (3), e0174831
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174831
Abstract
The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments. A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: “yes”, “yes, with modifications”, “no”) was examined using a multinomial regression model. 118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 (“yes” vs. “no”) and Domains 3 and 5 (“yes, with modifications” vs. “no”). The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.Keywords
This publication has 57 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interventions to Modify Health Care Provider Adherence to Asthma Guidelines: A Systematic ReviewPEDIATRICS, 2013
- Prevention, detection and management of early chronic kidney disease: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelinesNephrology, 2013
- Methodological Rigour and Transparency of Clinical Practice Guidelines Developed by Neurology Professional Societies in CroatiaPLOS ONE, 2013
- Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes MellitusPLOS ONE, 2013
- Appraisal of WHO Guidelines in Maternal Health Using the AGREE II Assessment ToolPLOS ONE, 2012
- Diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: a clinical practice guideline appraisal using AGREE II instrumentJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2012
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care SettingsAnnals of Family Medicine, 2012
- Guidelines on acute gastroenteritis in children: a critical appraisal of their quality and applicability in primary careBMC Family Practice, 2011
- Twelve years of clinical practice guideline development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada (1994 to 2005)Implementation Science, 2009
- Guideline implementation in allied health professions: a systematic review of the literatureHeart, 2008