ArticleBMC research notes2014
Tools for assessing the content of guidelines are needed to enable their effective use--a systematic comparison.
Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Migrant Healthcare Guidelines: A Systematic Quality Assessment.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2019Pooled it
- Diversity and Representation in Cardiovascular Research: Evidence Gaps, Emerging Models, and Policy Implications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Design and adaptation of a practice guideline for nonpharmacological management of pain in injured children in emergency medical services.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- COPD Action Plans: Gaps in Development Methods, Content, and Format.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
- Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- Clinical Practice Guidelines in an Era of Accountability, Saudi Arabia: A Call for Action.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2023Article
- Article
- Quality of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the management of pain, sedation, delirium and iatrogenic withdrawal in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review protocol.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
- Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
- Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Is it time to develop AGREE III?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019Article
- A Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Glioma Imaging Guidelines Using the AGREE II Tool: A EuroAIM Initiative.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- An evaluation of emergency guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in response to four infectious disease outbreaks.PloS one · 2018Article
- Assessing Strength of Evidence of Appropriate Use Criteria for Diagnostic Imaging Examinations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo ensure that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) form a sound basis for decision-making in health care, it is necessary to be able to reliably assess and ensure their quality. This results in the need to assess the content of guidelines systematically, particularly with regard to the validity of their recommendations.The aim of the present analysis was to determine the suitability and applicability of frequently used assessment tools for evidence syntheses with regard to the assessment of guideline content.
methodsWe conducted a systematic comparison and analysis of established tools for the assessment of evidence syntheses (guidelines, systematic reviews, health technology assessments). The tools analyzed were: ADAPTE, AGREE II, AMSTAR, GLIA and the INAHTA checklist. We analyzed methodological steps related to the assessment of the reliability and validity of guideline recommendations. Data were extracted and analyzed by two persons independently of one another.
resultsWidely used tools for the methodological assessment of evidence syntheses are not suitable for a comprehensive content-related assessment. They remain mostly at the level of assessment of the documentation of processes. Some tools assess selected content-related aspects, but operationalization is either unspecific or lacking.
conclusionNone of the tools analyzed enables the structured and comprehensive assessment of the content of guideline recommendations with special regard to their reliability and validity. All tools contribute towards the judicious use of evidence syntheses by supporting their systematic development or assessment. However, further progress is needed, particularly with regard to the assessment of content quality. This includes comprehensive operationalization and documentation of the assessment process to ensure reliability and validity, and therefore to enable the effective use of trustworthy guidelines in the health care system.
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.