ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023
A critical appraisal of urolithiasis clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. 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.
- Development of a Repeat Suicide Risk Management Protocol for Emergency Department Patients With Suicide Attempts: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Quality Assessment of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Using the AGREE II Tool.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Porous Se@SiOTranslational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Is the AGREE II framework the appropriate tool to evaluate global urolithiasis guidelines?Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was developed to improve the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). High-quality guidelines can provide reliable recommendations for different clinical issues. Currently, there is no quality appraisal of CPGs for urolithiasis. This study evaluated the quality of evidence-based CPGs for urolithiasis and provided new insights into improving guideline quality on urolithiasis. Methods: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify urolithiasis CPGs in PubMed, electronic databases, and websites of medical associations from January 2009 to July 2022. The quality of included CPGs was evaluated by four reviewers using the AGREE II instrument. Subsequently, the scores of all domains in the AGREE II instrument were calculated. Results: A total of 19 urolithiasis CPGs were identified for review: seven from Europe, six from USA, three from international union, two from Canada, and one from Asia. The agreement among reviewers was rated good [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 0.806; 95% CI: 0.779-0.831]. The domains with the highest scores were scope and purpose (69.7%, 54.2-86.1%) and clarity of presentation (76.8%, 59.7-90.3%). The domains of stakeholder involvement (44.9%, 19.4-84.7%) and applicability (48.5%, 30.2-72.9%) gained the lowest score. Only five guidelines (26.3%) were considered "strongly recommended". Conclusions: The overall quality of the eligible CPGs was relatively high; however, future work is still needed in the domains of rigor of development, editorial independence, applicability, and stakeholder involvement.
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.