ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From guidelines to clinical practice in care for ischaemic stroke patients: A systematic review and expert opinion.European journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Applicability Evaluation Guideline for Diagnostic Criteria of Chinese Medicine Syndromes.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Article
- Implementability of clinical practice guidelines: the review and development of a Comprehensive Framework for Guideline Implementability (CFGI).Implementation science communications · 2025Review
- An instrument for evaluating the clinical applicability of guidelines.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.JAMA network open · 2020Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop the clinical practice guidelines applicability evaluation (CPGAE-V1.0) scale and to evaluate its validity and reliability.
methodsOne hundred fifty assessors were invited to rate two rounds of importance scoring of the applicability indicators by using the 5-point Likert scale. Approved indicators formed the CPGAE-V1.0 scale, consisting of 19 items, arranged into 4 domains. We enrolled eligible clinicians from 8 institutions to evaluate 9 clinical practice guidelines using the CPGAE-V1.0 scale. Content validity, construct validity, internal reliability, intra-rater reliability, and responsiveness were analyzed.
resultsA total of 220 clinicians participated, and the response rate was 98.6% (217/220). The CPGAE-V1.0 scale had favorable content validity. The four-factor model produced acceptable fit indices. The scale had an excellent internal consistency and item discrimination. It could identify the degree of applicability of the different dimensions between different guidelines. In all domains, 77.8% (7/9) of CPGs in the minimum-scoring domain were concentrated in the "coordination of support" domain.
conclusionsThe CPGAE-V1.0 scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the applicability of CPG.
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.