IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer
  • Ulrich Siering
  • Edmund A M Neugebauer
  • Anne Catharina Brockhaus
  • Ulrike Lampert
  • Michaela Eikermann

Abstract

Introduction: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments. Materials and methods: A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: “yes”, “yes, with modifications”, “no”) was examined using a multinomial regression model. Results: 118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 (“yes” vs. “no”) and Domains 3 and 5 (“yes, with modifications” vs. “no”). Conclusions: The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer & Ulrich Siering & Edmund A M Neugebauer & Anne Catharina Brockhaus & Ulrike Lampert & Michaela Eikermann, 2017. "Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174831
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174831
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174831&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brusamento, Serena & Legido-Quigley, Helena & Panteli, Dimitra & Turk, Eva & Knai, Cecile & Saliba, Vanessa & Car, Josip & McKee, Martin & Busse, Reinhard, 2012. "Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to implement clinical guidelines for the management of chronic diseases at primary care level in EU Member States: A systematic review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 168-183.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel & Daniela Oliveira de Melo & Renério Fráguas & Nathália Celini Leite-Santos & Rafael Augusto Mantovani da Silva & Eliane Ribeiro, 2020. "Pharmacological treatment of depression: A systematic review comparing clinical practice guideline recommendations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knai, Cécile & Nolte, Ellen & Brunn, Matthias & Elissen, Arianne & Conklin, Annalijn & Pedersen, Janice Pedersen & Brereton, Laura & Erler, Antje & Frølich, Anne & Flamm, Maria & Fullerton, Birgitte &, 2013. "Reported barriers to evaluation in chronic care: Experiences in six European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 220-228.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.