Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12571340›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2003

Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project.

AGREE Collaboration

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 404 papers, 39 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
404citing papers in PubMed, 39 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

404 citing papers in PubMed, 39 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Nutritional Risk Screening Recommendations for Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Research Study and Quality Appraisal of Clinical Guidelines.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Characteristics and quality of clinical practice guidelines for diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2024
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

344 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

AGREE Collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational interest in clinical practice guidelines has never been greater but many published guidelines do not meet the basic quality requirements. There have been renewed calls for validated criteria to assess the quality of guidelines.

objectiveTo develop and validate an international instrument for assessing the quality of the process and reporting of clinical practice guideline development.

methodsThe instrument was developed through a multi-staged process of item generation, selection and scaling, field testing, and refinement procedures. 100 guidelines selected from 11 participating countries were evaluated independently by 194 appraisers with the instrument. Following refinement the instrument was further field tested on three guidelines per country by a new set of 70 appraisers.

resultsThe final version of the instrument contained 23 items grouped into six quality domains with a 4 point Likert scale to score each item (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, editorial independence). 95% of appraisers found the instrument useful for assessing guidelines. Reliability was acceptable for most domains (Cronbach's alpha 0.64-0.88). Guidelines produced as part of an established guideline programme had significantly higher scores on editorial independence and, after the publication of a national policy, had significantly higher quality scores on rigour of development (p<0.005). Guidelines with technical documentation had higher scores on that domain (p<0.0001).

conclusionsThis is the first time an appraisal instrument for clinical practice guidelines has been developed and tested internationally. The instrument is sensitive to differences in important aspects of guidelines and can be used consistently and easily by a wide range of professionals from different backgrounds. The adoption of common standards should improve the consistency and quality of the reporting of guideline development worldwide and provide a framework to encourage international comparison of clinical practice guidelines.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareEuropeHealth Services ResearchHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProgram DevelopmentProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID12571340
PMCPMC1743672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.