Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines in perioperative care: A systematic appraisal

Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni M Claret 171, 08041 Barcelona, Spain.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 12/2010; 19(6):e50. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2009.038653
Source: PubMed


Surgical care is an important burden in healthcare, and the complications and harm related to surgery are of special concern. Clinical practice guidelines in perioperative care should provide the opportunity to minimise these risks and improve surgical outcomes, but their quality has not yet been evaluated systematically.
To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the prevention of perioperative adverse events.
A systematic search of scientific literature published between 1990 and 2008 was undertaken to identify and select CPGs related to the treatment of surgical patients, particularly those seeking to prevent surgical adverse events. The authors searched the main guideline databases and guideline developer websites, and completed the search in MEDLINE. Three independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Their degree of agreement was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Twenty-two CPGs were chosen for evaluation from a total of 6181 references. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84). The scores for each of the AGREE domains were: scope and purpose 80.9% (range: 40.7-100%); stakeholder involvement 51.3% (range: 8.3-88.8%); rigour of development 61.2% (range: 26.9-96.8%); clarity and presentation 69.7% (range: 33.3-94.4%); applicability 42.5% (range: 7.4-92.5%); and editorial independence 57% (range: 27.7-100%). Most of the appraised guidelines could be recommended (n = 10) or recommended with provisos (n = 10) for use in clinical practice. Guidelines developed by research agencies or guideline developers were of a higher quality than those developed by scientific societies. The authors did not detect any improvement over time in guideline quality.
The quality of guidelines for perioperative care is moderate. Measures should be taken to guarantee that CPGs are based on the best available evidence and rigorously developed and reported. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that serve as a useful and reliable tool for clinical decision-making in this field.

Download full-text


Available from: Mario F. Delgado-Noguera
  • Source
    • "We also integrated the AGREE instrument by applying an additional system aimed at evaluating whether guidelines could be considered evidence-based. Following a scheme already proposed in the literature [11,14], we defined three criteria for this purpose: the search strategy having been reported in at least one database, the quality of evidence classified, and the strength of recommendations reported. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background We examined the methodological quality of guidelines on syndromes conferring genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Google were searched for guidelines published up to October 2010. All guidelines in English were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used to assess the quality of the guidelines, and their reported evidence base was evaluated. Results Thirteen guidelines were deemed eligible: seven had been developed by independent associations, and the other six had national/state endorsements. Four guidelines performed satisfactorily, achieving a score of greater than 50% in all six AGREE domains. Mean ± SD standardized scores for the six AGREE domains were: 90 ± 9% for 'scope and purpose', 51 ± 18% for 'stakeholder involvement', 55 ± 27% for 'rigour of development', 80 ± 11% for 'clarity and presentation', 37 ± 32% for 'applicability', and 47 ± 38% for 'editorial independence'. Ten of the thirteen guidelines were found to be based on research evidence. Conclusions Given the ethical implications and the high costs of genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer, guidelines on this topic should provide clear and evidence-based recommendations. Our analysis shows that there is scope for improving many aspects of the methodological quality of current guidelines. The AGREE instrument is a useful tool, and could be used profitably by guidelines developers to improve the quality of recommendations.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2012 · BMC Medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We examined the methodological quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer genetic susceptibility syndromes. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google were searched up to July 2010. Adjourned guidelines in English were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used to assess their quality, and the reported evidence base of the guidelines was evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 17 eligible guidelines: 11 were developed by independent associations, while 6 had national\state endorsement. Only three guidelines performed satisfactorily, achieving a score >50% in all 6 AGREE domains. Mean standardized scores for the 6 AGREE domains were: 'scope and purpose', 83.9 ± 22.5%; 'stakeholder involvement', 35.6 ± 24.9%; 'rigour of development', 48.6 ± 25.3%; 'clarity and presentation', 71.6 ± 19.3%; 'applicability', 33.8 ± 30.1%; 'editorial independence', 42.2 ± 39.7%. Guidelines with national endorsement performed better in all the domains, with a statistically significant difference in three domains. Fifteen guidelines out of 17 were found to be based on research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There is scope, in many areas, for improving the guidelines analysed, among which are the involvement of various professional figures and patients' representatives, and policies for their application. The AGREE instrument is a useful tool and could also be used profitably by guideline developers to improve the quality of recommendations.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2011 · The European Journal of Public Health
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Clinical guidelines are an important tool for improving service quality, the benefits of guidelines depend on their quality. In China, there has been a great increase in production of guidelines. However, little is known about their quality. Method We identified Chinese guidelines published between 2006 and 2010 by searching three Chinese full-text databases, major Chinese guidelines websites and Google. Three appraisers independently evaluated each guideline by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed according to source, title, version, aspect of care and developer of guidelines. ResultsA total of 327 guidelines were eligible and 57 were excluded for their lacking of any account of the guideline development methodology. Of the 270 guidelines, 77 (28.5%) can be recommended, 6 (2.2%) were evidence-based guidelines. Sixteen (5.9%) guidelines described the methods used to search for evidence, 61 (22.6%) appraised the quality of evidence and 53 (19.6%) graded the strength of recommendations. Two guidelines declared the involvement of methodological experts and none reported considering patients' values. 29 (10.7%) guidelines received drug company sponsorship but only two declared the views of the funding bodies did not influence the recommendations, 259 (95.9%) didn't declare the interest conflicts of guideline developers. Guidelines downloaded from Internet and with updated versions yielded higher quality than the rest. Conclusions Although numerous guidelines were produced in China, the quality was generally low. Focusing on improving the quality of Chinese guidelines, rather than continuing to produce them in great quantity, is urgently needed.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2012 · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Show more