ArticleJAMA network open2020
Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 25 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
97 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of physical activity guidelines for adults with cardio-respiratory diseases: Stepping towards evidence-based recommendations.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of International Guidelines for Addressing Alcohol Use Disorder in Pregnancy.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Pooled it
- Nutrition Recommendations for People Living After Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Methodological Rigor and Recommendation Excellence of TAVR Guidelines: Insights from AGREE II and AGREE-REX Instruments.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Methodological Quality of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Treatment Evidence-Based Guidelines: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE REX Tools.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Guideline
- Red cell specifications for blood group matching in patients with haemoglobinopathies: An updated systematic review and clinical practice guideline from the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines.British journal of haematology · 2025Pooled it
- Nutritional care in rehabilitation and acute care of stroke patients: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.Frontiers in stroke · 2025Pooled it
- Stroke Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Quality and Unique Features.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Management of opioid use disorder: 2024 update to the national clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Guideline
- Hospital falls clinical practice guidelines: a global analysis and systematic review.Age and ageing · 2024Pooled it
- Evidence-based recommendations for the rehabilitation and management of the ageing population with spinal cord injury: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Inclusion of Rurality and Social Determinants of Health in Documents for the Primary Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Metabolic syndrome and related disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Perioperative clinical practice recommendations for pediatric tonsillectomy: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of clinical psychological guidance for perinatal mental health.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in inflammatory bowel disease guidelines: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. Objective: To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. Exposures: Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. Results: A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.
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.