ArticleThe spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society2015
A critical appraisal of the North American Spine Society guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.
Article in The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute ankle injuries according to: a PRISMA systematic review and quality appraisal with AGREE II.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for recurrent urinary tract infections using AGREE II: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- [Guideline for stratified screening and surveillance of primary liver cancer(2020 Edition)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2021Guideline
- The Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensuses on the Management of Primary Aldosteronism: A Critical Appraisal.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Pooled it
- Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Screening and diagnosis of oral cancer: a critical quality appraisal of clinical guidelines.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
- An appraisal of emergency medicine clinical practice guidelines: Do we agree?International journal of clinical practice · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background contextThe North American Spine Society (NASS) publishes clinical guidelines that are taken into consideration worldwide by clinicians who have a special interest in spinal surgery. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II is the second version of the original AGREE instrument to assess the quality of guidelines in terms of development process. This appraisal aims to evaluate each individual NASS guideline using AGREE II tool to demonstrate its methodologic robust and weakness. PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines published by the NASS. STUDY
designFour appraisers used the AGREE II guideline evaluation instrument to evaluate the NASS guidelines.
methodsAll six guidelines available on the NASS web site as of July 1, 2014 were evaluated. Four reviewers independently assessed these guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. The instrument standardizes the quantitative assessment of quality for a guideline's development process across six domains that include: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Additionally, each reviewer rated the overall quality of the guidelines.
resultsOverall results for the AGREE II domains across all six guidelines were: scope and purpose (median score, 94.4%), stakeholder involvement (median score, 56.9%), rigor of development (median score, 91.7%), clarity of presentation (median score, 94.4%), applicability (median score, 60.9%), and editorial independence (median score, 71.9%).
conclusionsOur study showed that the quality of the NASS guidelines needs some improvement. There is a critical need for broader stakeholder involvement including patient representatives and health economists. Consideration of resource implications and monitoring process and standardization of how recommendations are implemented need to be improved. Studies analyzing facilitators and barriers would be helpful for future NASS guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25614152What 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.