Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459354›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.

Melissa C Brouwers, Karen Spithoff, Kate Kerkvliet, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Jako Burgers, Francoise Cluzeau, Beatrice Férvers, Ian Graham, Jeremy Grimshaw, Steven Hanna and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 25 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Management of opioid use disorder: 2024 update to the national clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Perioperative clinical practice recommendations for pediatric tonsillectomy: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Melissa C BrouwersUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Karen SpithoffMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kate KerkvlietMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Pablo Alonso-CoelloIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Jako BurgersDutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Francoise CluzeauImperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Beatrice FérversDépartement Cancer et Environnement, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon Cedex 08, France.
Ian GrahamOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeremy GrimshawOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Steven HannaMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Monika KastnerNorth York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle KhoInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Amir QaseemAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sharon StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ivan D FlorezDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.

Funding

CIHR 201209MOP-285689-KTR-CEBA-40598
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PolicyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsStakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID32459354
PMCPMC7254179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.