Assessment of the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation–Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) instrument shows there is room for improvement
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
AbstractObjectiveTo assess the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using AGREE-REX-D (Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence Draft).DesignCross-sectional studySettingInternational CPG community.ParticipantsThree hundred twenty-two international CPG developers, users, and researchers.InterventionParticipants were assigned to appraise one of 161 CPGs selected for the study using the AGREE-REX-D toolMain outcome measuresAGREE-REX-D scores of 161 CPGs (7-point scale, maximum 7).ResultsRecommendations from 161 CPGs were appraised by 322 participants using the AGREE-REX-D. CPGs were developed by 67 different organizations. The total overall average score of the CPG recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.14). AGREE-REX-D items that scored the highest were (mean; SD): evidence (5.51; 1.14), clinical relevance (5.95; SD 0.8), and patients/population relevance (4.87; SD 1.33), while the lowest scores were observed for the policy values (3.44; SD 1.53), local applicability (3,56; SD 1.47), and resources, tools, and capacity (3.49; SD 1.44) items. CPGs developed by government-supported organizations and developed in the UK and Canada had significantly higher recommendation quality scores with the AGREE-REX-D tool (p < 0.05) than their comparators.ConclusionsWe found that there is significant room for improvement of some CPGs such as the considerations of patient/population values, policy values, local applicability and resources, tools, and capacity. These findings may be considered a baseline upon which to measure future improvements in the quality of CPGs.
