SynthesisPloS one2014
Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for myasthenia gravis with the AGREE II instrument.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for recurrent urinary tract infections using AGREE II: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical guidelines for herpes labialis: recommendations and quality evaluation according to AGREE II.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2024Review
- A mixed methods analysis of existing assessment and evaluation tools (AETs) for mental health applications.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- A systematic review of infant feeding food allergy prevention guidelines - can we AGREE?The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021Review
- The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument in Japan: A time trend analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
- 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
- The different clinical guideline standards in Brazil: High cost treatment diseases versus poverty-related diseases.PloS one · 2018Article
- A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative.Insights into imaging · 2017Article
- A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative.Insights into imaging · 2017Article
- Non-Communicable Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Brazil: A Systematic Assessment of Methodological Quality and Transparency.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners in making decisions about appropriate healthcare in specific clinical circumstances. The methodological quality of CPGs for myasthenia gravis (MG) are unclear.
objectiveTo critically evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for MG using AGREE II instrument.
methodA systematical search strategy on PubMed, EMBASE, DynaMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) was performed on September 20th 2013. All guidelines related to MG were evaluated with AGREE II. The software used for analysis was SPSS 17.0.
resultsA total of 15 CPGs for MG met the inclusion criteria (12 CPGs in English, 3 CPGs in Chinese). The overall agreement among reviews was moderate or high (ICC >0.70). The mean scores (mean ± SD) for al six domains were presented as follows: scope and purpose (60.93% ± 16.62%), stakeholder involvement (40.93% ± 20.04%), rigor of development (37.22% ± 30.46%), clarity of presentation (64.26% ± 16.36%), applicability (28.19% ± 20.56%) and editorial independence (27.78% ± 28.28%). Compared with non-evidence-based CPGs, evidence-based CPGs had statistically significant higher quality scores for all AGREE II domains (P<0.05). All domain scores appear slightly higher for CPGs published after AGREE II instrument development and validation (P>0.05). The quality scores of CPGs developed by NGC/AAN were higher than the quality scores of CPGs developed by other organizations for all domains. The difference was statistically significant for all domains with the exception of clarity of presentation (P = 0.07).
conclusionsThe qualities of CPGs on MG were generally acceptable with several flaws. The AGREE II instrument should be adopted by guideline developers, particularly in China.
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.