ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2013
Guidelines in cardiac clinical practice: evaluation of their methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality appraisal and descriptive analysis of clinical practice guidelines for self-managed non-pharmacological interventions of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress of cancer patients using the AGREE II instrument.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Quality of undifferentiated chest pain evaluation and diagnosis guidelines: a systematic review and critical appraisal.JRSM open · 2024Review
- Modern Paediatric Emergency Department: Potential Improvements in Light of New Evidence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The quality of guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease: a critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2022Review
- Lessons for and from the COVID-19 pandemic response - An appraisal of guidance for the public health management of Invasive Meningococcal Disease.Journal of infection and public health · 2021Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
- Critical appraisal of papers reporting recommendation on sarcopenia using the AGREE II tool: a EuroAIM initiative.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Article
- Appraising of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Quality in the Non-Pharmacological Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; A ReviewAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Review
- Methodological Quality Appraisal of 27 Korean Guidelines Using a Scoring Guide Based on the AGREE II Instrument and a Web-based Evaluation.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- Guidelines on vitamin D replacement in bariatric surgery: Identification and systematic appraisal.Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 2016Review
- High methodologic quality but poor applicability: assessment of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2014Article
- Improving the reliability of clinical practice guideline appraisals: effects of the Korean AGREE II scoring guide.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although clinical guidelines have an influential role in healthcare practice, their development process and the evidence they cite has been subject to criticism. This study evaluates the quality of guidelines in cardiac clinical practice by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in guideline development. A structured review of cardiac clinical practice guidelines published in seven cardiovascular journals between January 2001 and May 2011 was performed. The AGREE II assessment tool was used by two researchers to evaluate guideline quality. A total of 101 guidelines were identified. Assessment of guidelines using AGREE II found methodological quality to be highly variable (median score, 58.70%; range, 45.34-76.40%). 'Scope and purpose' (median score, 86.1%) and 'clarity of development' (median score, 83.3 %) were the two domains within AGREE II that received the highest scores. Applicability (median score, 20.80%; range, 4.20-54.20%) and editorial independence (median score, 33.30%; range, 0-62.50%) had the lowest scores. There is considerable variability in the quality of cardiac clinical practice guidelines and this has not improved over the last 10 years. Incorporating validated guideline assessment tools, such as AGREE II, may improve the quality of guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.