ArticlePloS one2016
Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines Developed by Professional Societies in Turkey.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An assessment of variation in quality of hypertension guidelines across income settings using the AGREE II tool.Wellcome open research · 2024Pooled it
- Challenges, barriers and solutions for implementing clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative study in southern Iran.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- A Fuzzy BWM-TOPSIS Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Measures to Overcome Obstacles to the Regionalization of Iranian Healthcare Services.International journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Quality assessment of Japanese clinical practice guidelines including recommendations for acupuncture.Integrative medicine research · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with the Quality and Transparency of National Guidelines: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Quality of Six Clinical Practice Guidelines in Health and Social Sciences: Are We on the Right Track?Administration and policy in mental health · 2021Article
- Assessing the Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region: A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- A quality assessment of evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Assessing methodological quality of Russian clinical practice guidelines and introducing AGREE II instrument in Russia.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances. There is a limited number of studies on guidelines in Turkey. The quality of Ministry of Health guidelines have formerly been assessed whereas there is no information on the other guidelines developed in the country.
aimThis study aims to assess the quality of CPGs that are developed by professional societies that work for the health sector in Turkey, and compare the findings with international guidelines. METHODOLOGY: Professional societies that work for the health sector were determined by using the data obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined for selecting the CPGs. Guidelines containing recommendations about disease management to the doctors, accessible online, developed within the past 5 years, citing references for recommendations, about the diseases over 1% prevalence according to the "Statistical Yearbook of Turkey 2012" were included in the study. The quality of CPGs were assessed with the AGREE II instrument, which is an internationally recognized tool for this purpose. Four independent reviewers, who did not participate in the development of the selected guidelines and were trained in CPG appraisal, used the AGREE instrument for assessment of the selected guidelines.
findings47 professional societies were defined which provided access to CPGs in their websites; 3 of them were only open to members so these could not be reached. 8 CPGs from 7 societies were selected from a total of 401 CPGs from 44 societies. The mean scores of the domains of the guidelines which were assessed by the AGREE II tool were; SCOPE AND PURPOSE: 64%, stakeholder involvement: 37.9%, rigour of development: 35.3%, clarity and presentation: 77.9%, applicability: 49.0% and editorial independence: 46.0%.
conclusionThis is the first study in Turkey regarding quality appraisal of guidelines developed by the local professional societies. It adds to the limited amount of information in the literature that comes from Turkey as well as other developing countries.
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.