ArticleBMJ open2023
Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines in Kenya using the AGREE II tool: a methodological review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveTo assess the quality of available and accessible national Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in Kenya using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.
methodsWe searched the websites of the Kenyan Ministry of Health, professional associations and contacted experts in relevant organisations. Our scope was guidelines on maternal, neonatal, nutritional disorders, injuries, communicable and non-communicable diseases in Kenya published in the last 5 years until 30 June 2022. Study selection and data extraction were done by three independent reviewers with disagreements resolved via discussion or with a senior reviewer. We conducted a quality assessment using the online English version of AGREE II tool across six domains. Descriptive statistics were analysed using Stata software V.17. The primary outcome was the methodological quality of the included CPGs assessed by the AGREE II tool score.
resultsWe retrieved 95 CPGs and included 24 in the analysis after screening for eligibility. The CPGs scored best in clarity of presentation and least in the rigour of development. In descending order, the appraisal scores (mean and CI) per domain were as follows: Clarity of presentation 82.96% (95% CI 78.35% to 87.57%) with all guidelines scoring above 50%. Scope and purpose 61.75% (95% CI 54.19% to 69.31%) with seven guidelines scoring less than 50%. Stakeholder involvement 45.25% (95% CI 40.01% to 50.49%) with 16 CPGs scoring less than 50%. Applicability domain 19.88% (95% CI 13.32% to 26.43%) with only one CPG scoring above 50%. Editorial independence 6.92% (95% CI 3.47% to 10.37%) with no CPG scoring above 50% and rigour of development 3% (95% CI 0.61% to 5.39%) with no CPG scoring at least 50%.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the quality of CPGs in Kenya is limited mainly by the rigour of development, editorial independence, applicability and stakeholder involvement. Training initiatives on evidence-based methodology among guideline developers are needed to improve the overall quality of CPGs for better patient care.
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.