ArticlePloS one2019
Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument in Japan: A time trend analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential of ChatGPT Schematics to Enhance Patient Understanding and Healthcare Decision-Making.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are representative methods for promoting the standardization of healthcare and improvement of its quality. Few studies have investigated changes in the quality of CPGs published in a country over time. Our aim was to investigate changes in the quality of CPGs over time in the context of the available infrastructure for CPG development, public interest in healthcare quality, and healthcare providers' responses to this interest.
methodsAll CPGs pertaining to evidence-based medicine (EBM) issued between 2000 and 2014 in Japan (n = 373) were evaluated using the Japanese version of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) I. Additionally, time trends in quality were analyzed. Using a cut-off point based on the publication year of CPG development literature, the evaluated CPGs were classified into those published until 2008 (pre-2008) and those published since 2009 (post-2008). Subsequently, we compared these groups in terms of 1) first edition CPGs and its second editions, and 2) patients' version of CPGs.
resultsScores on all six domains of AGREE I improved each year. A comparison of the first- and second-edition of CPGs (n = 64) showed that scores on all domains improved significantly after revision. Significant improvement was observed in three domains (#2 stakeholder involvement, #3 rigor of development, and #4 clarity of presentation) in the pre-2008 group and in all domains in the post-2008 group. The comparison between the pre- and post-2008 groups in terms of CPGs for patients showed that the score increased in only one domain (#1 scope and purpose).
conclusionsThe number of published CPGs has been increasing and the quality of CPGs, as assessed using the AGREE I instrument, has been improving. These changes seem to be influenced by improvements in social infrastructure, such as the publication of CPG development procedures, availability of CPG preparation methodology training, and increase in CPG-related skills.
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.