Guidelines in cardiac clinical practice: Evaluation of their methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 106, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 315-322

  Sabharwal, Sanjeeve ^a   Patel, Vanash ^a   Nijjer, Sukhjinder S ^b   Kirresh, Ali ^a   Darzi, Ara ^a   Chambers, John C ^c   Malik, Iqbal ^a   Kooner, Jaspal S ^b   Athanasiou, Thanos ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL HEART AND LUNG INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

AGREE II; Cardiac practice; Guidelines

Indexed keywords

AGREE II INSTRUMENT; ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 84883188489     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0141076813486261     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2011.
2. Grimshaw JM and Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342: 1317-1322.
3. Jackson R and Feder G. Guidelines for clinical guidelines. BMJ 1998; 317: 427-318.
4. Cook D and Giacomini M. The trials and tribulations of clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1999; 281: 1950-1951.
5. Heffner JE. Does evidence-based medicine help the development of clinical practice guidelines? Chest 1998; 113: 172-178.
6. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009; 301: 831-841.
7. Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, et al. Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 749-754.
8. Giannakakis IA, Haidich AB, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, et al. Citation of randomized evidence in support of guidelines of therapeutic and preventive interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 545-555.
9. Detsky AS. Sources of bias for authors of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 2006; 175: 1033-1035.
10. Thomson R, McElroy H and Sudlow M. Guidelines on anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation in Great Britain: variation in content and implications for treatment. BMJ 1998; 316: 509-513.
11. American Medical Association. Office of Quality Assurance. Attributes to Guide the Development and Evaluation of Practice Parameters. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1990.
12. Eddy D. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Policies: The Explicit Approach. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 1992.
13. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF and Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 1999; 281: 1900-1905.
14. Papanikolaou GN, Baltogianni MS, Contopoulos- Ioannidis DG, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 3.
15. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010; 182: 839-842.
16. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1308-1311.
17. AGREE Manual. See http://www.agreetrust.org (last checked 20 March 2013).
18. Vlayen J, Aertgeerts B, Hannes K, et al. A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. Int J Qual Health Care 2005; 17: 235-242.
19. World Health Organization. The Reproductive Health Library (2011). Geneva: WHO, 2011. See http://apps. who.int/rhl/guidelines/en/index.html (last checked 20 March 2013)
20. American Heart Association Levels of Evidence and Grading of Recommendation. See http://www.aha.org (last checked 20 March 2013).
21. Soteriades ES and Falagas ME. Comparison of amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States. BMJ 2005; 331: 192-194.
22. EU eliminates citation gap with America. Nature 1997;387:537.
23. Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, et al. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ 2001; 323: 155-157.
24. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 380-387.
25. Meade MO and Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 531-537.
26. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000; 283: 373-380.
27. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, et al. Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 1998; 67: 194-201.
28. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926.
29. Canfield SE and Dahm P. Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using GRADE. World J Urol 2011; 29: 311-317.
30. Onate-Ocana LF and Ochoa-Carrillo FJ. The GRADE system for classification of the level of evidence and grade of recommendations in clinical guideline reports. Cir Cir 2009; 77: 417-419.
31. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. GRADE: assessing the quality of evidence for diagnostic recommendations. Evid Based Med 2008; 13: 162-163.
32. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ 2010; 182: 472-478.