Appraisal of WHO Guidelines in Maternal Health Using the AGREE II Assessment Tool
Open Access
- 13 August 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 7 (8), e38891
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038891
Abstract
In 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) received a criticism for a lack of transparency and systematic methods in the development of guidelines, which were at that time perceived as substantially driven by expert opinion. In this paper we assessed the quality of maternal and perinatal health guidelines developed since then. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to evaluate the quality of methodological rigour and transparency of four different WHO guidelines published between 2007 and 2011. Our findings showed high scores among the most recent guidelines on maternal and perinatal health suggesting higher quality. However, there is still potential for improvement, especially in including different stakeholder views, transparency of guidelines regarding the role of the funding body and presentation of the guideline document.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Saving womens lives: evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage.Published by WHO Press ,2007
- Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelinesBMC Health Services Research, 2005
- An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline developmentThe Lancet, 2004
- Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE projectQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2003
- Appropriateness of Surgery for SciaticaSpine, 2000
- Physician recommendations for coronary revascularization. Variations by clinical specialityEuropean Journal of Public Health, 1999
- Rating the Appropriateness of Coronary Angiography — Do Practicing Physicians Agree with an Expert Panel and with Each Other?New England Journal of Medicine, 1998
- Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.Health Technology Assessment, 1998
- Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendationsHealth Policy, 1997