Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20513780›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2010

Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement.

Melissa C Brouwers, Michelle E Kho, George P Browman, Jako S Burgers, Francoise Cluzeau, Gene Feder, Béatrice Fervers, Ian D Graham, Steven E Hanna, Julie Makarski and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 191 papers, 56 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
191citing papers in PubMed, 56 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

191 citing papers in PubMed, 56 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Pooled it
  11. Incorporating Social Determinants of Health in Infectious Disease Models: A Systematic Review of Guidelines.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Guideline
  20. Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it

131 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

11 authors.

Melissa C BrouwersMcMaster University, Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, ON, Canada. mbrouwer@mcmaster.ca
Michelle E Kho
George P Browman
Jako S Burgers
Francoise Cluzeau
Gene Feder
Béatrice Fervers
Ian D Graham
Steven E Hanna
Julie Makarski
AGREE Next Steps Consortium

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe undertook research to improve the AGREE instrument, a tool used to evaluate guidelines. We tested a new seven-point scale, evaluated the usefulness of the original items in the instrument, investigated evidence to support shorter, tailored versions of the tool, and identified areas for improvement.

methodWe report on one component of a larger study that used a mixed design with four factors (user type, clinical topic, guideline and condition). For the analysis reported in this article, we asked participants to read a guideline and use the AGREE items to evaluate it based on a seven-point scale, to complete three outcome measures related to adoption of the guideline, and to provide feedback on the instrument's usefulness and how to improve it.

resultsGuideline developers gave lower-quality ratings than did clinicians or policy-makers. Five of six domains were significant predictors of participants' outcome measures (p < 0.05). All domains and items were rated as useful by stakeholders (mean scores > 4.0) with no significant differences by user type (p > 0.05). Internal consistency ranged between 0.64 and 0.89. Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory. We received feedback on how to improve the instrument.

interpretationQuality ratings of the AGREE domains were significant predictors of outcome measures associated with guideline adoption: guideline endorsements, overall intentions to use guidelines, and overall quality of guidelines. All AGREE items were assessed as useful in determining whether a participant would use a guideline. No clusters of items were found more useful by some users than others. The measurement properties of the seven-point scale were promising. These data contributed to the refinements and release of the AGREE II.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansObserver VariationOutcome Assessment, Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID20513780
PMCPMC2900328

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.