ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2025
Assessing the Quality of World Health Organisation Guidelines during Health Emergencies: A Domain-Based Analysis.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective response during global health emergencies hinges on the quality of guidelines provided by authoritative organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO). This study assessed the quality of WHO emergency guidelines disseminated through the Disease Outbreak News (DONs) platform between 2023 and 2024 to identify strengths and weaknesses across established quality domains.
methodsA total of 115 WHO guidelines issued within DONs were analysed using the AGREE II framework, which evaluates six domains: Scope and Purpose; Stakeholder Involvement; Rigour of Development; Clarity of Presentation; Applicability, and Editorial Independence. Descriptive statistics and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were conducted to determine significant differences among domain scores.
resultsThe analysis revealed statistically significant differences across domains, F(2.40, 552.34) = 739.09, p < .001, ηp² = 0.866. The highest mean scores were recorded for Scope and Purpose (M = 6.46) and Clarity of Presentation (M = 6.27), indicating strengths in goal articulation and user accessibility. Conversely, Editorial Independence (M = 2.74) and Rigour of Development (M = 3.26) scored the lowest, pointing to persistent gaps in transparency and methodological robustness.
conclusionsWhile WHO guidelines during emergencies perform well in clarity and scope, critical weaknesses remain in transparency, stakeholder engagement, and methodological rigour. These findings indicate the need for more balanced and inclusive guideline development processes to enhance trust and utility during public health emergencies.
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.