for the Chronic Diseases and Informed Decisions (CHRONIDE) Group IMPORTANCE As the rate of publication of new and sometimes conflicting medical research increases, clinicians rely heavily on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform practice. However, CPGs are of widely variable quality, and there are no existing objective measures to rate the quality of CPGs.OBJECTIVE To systematically assess 421 CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II (AGREE-II) tool and elucidate the factors associated with quality of CPGs.EVIDENCE REVIEW MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 12 websites for CPGs were searched for CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care published between January 1, 2011, and August 30, 2017. The assessment of the quality of CPGs was performed by 3 appraisers using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II instrument. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with quality of CPGs.FINDINGS Of the 421 CPGs reviewed, 23.5% (99) were classified as high quality. Among included guidelines, clarity of presentation (70%) and scope and purpose (61%) had the highest median AGREE-II scores. The domains with the lowest median scores were applicability (22%) and rigor of development (33%). Factors associated with high-quality CPGs included having more than 20 authors (odds ratio, 9.08; 95% CI, 3.35-24.62), development at governmental institutions (odds ratio, 10.38; 95% CI, 2.72-39.60), and reporting funding (odds ratio, 10.34; 95% CI,. Year of publication, region, guideline version, and scope were not associated with quality among included CPGs.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Primary care professionals and policymakers should be aware that CPGs in primary care are of widely variable quality, with less than 25% of included CPGs rated as high quality. High-quality CPGs were associated with a higher number of authors, governmental institutions, and the report of funding. Region of origin was not associated with quality of CPGs, which suggests that the improvement of the quality of CPGs should be an international concern.

Several CPGs for SAP were developed without the desired methodological rigour or transparency. Synthesis of recommendations for best-evaluated CPGs provides a broad approach owing to the complementarity of the recommendations.

Background: Implementation is a key step in ensuring that high-quality clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations are followed and have a positive impact. This step must be planned during CPG development. This study aims to inform professionals tasked with developing and implementing CPGs regarding implementation strategies and tools reported in high-quality CPGs for chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs).Methods: NCD guidelines were selected based on Appraisal of Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II assessment. CPGs with a score of ≥60% in AGREE II domains 3 (rigor of development), 5 (applicability), and 6 (editorial independence), were considered high quality. The content related to implementation was extracted from CPG full texts and complementary materials. Implementation strategies and tools were assessed and classified using Mazza taxonomy.Results: Twenty high-quality CPGs were selected, most of which were developed by government institutions (16; 80%) with public funding (16; 80%); almost half (9; 45%) addressed the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. The countries with the most high-quality CPGs were the UK (6; 30%) and Colombia (5; 25%). These countries also had the highest average number of strategies, Colombia with 28 (SD = 1) distributed in all levels, and the UK with 15 (SD = 7), concentrating on professional and organizational levels. Although the content of the Colombian CPGs was similar regardless the disease, the CPGs from the UK were specific and contained data-based feedback reports and information on CPG compliance. Implementation strategies most frequently identified were at the professional level, such as distributing reference material (18; 80%) and educating groups of healthcare professionals (18; 80%). At the organizational level, the most frequent strategies involve changes in structure (15; 75%) and service delivery method (13; 65%).Conclusion: Countries with established CPG programs, such as the UK and Colombia, where identified as having the highest number of high-quality CPGs, although CPG implementation content had significant differences. Among high-quality CPGs, the most common implementation strategies were at the professional and organizational levels. There is still room for improvement regarding the implementation strategies report, even among high-quality CPGs, especially concerning monitoring of implementation outcomes and selection of strategies based on relevant implementation barriers.

No abstract

Purpose Good medical practice, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) have been recurring subjects in the scientific literature. EBM advocates argue that good medical practice should be guided by evidence-based CPG. On the other hand, critical authors of EBM methodology argue that various interests undermine the quality of evidence and reliability of CPG recommendations. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate patient related outcomes of CPG implementation, in light of EBM critics. Design/methodology/approach The authors opted for a rapid literature review. Findings There are few studies evaluating the effectiveness of CPG in patient-related outcomes. The systematic reviews found are not conclusive, although they suggest a positive impact of CPGs in relevant outcomes. Research limitations/implications This work was not a systematic review of literature, which is its main limitation. On the other hand, arguments from EBM and CPG critics were considered, and thus it can enlighten health institutions to recognize the caveats and to establish policies toward care improvement. Originality/value The paper is the first of its kind to discuss, based on the published literature, next steps toward better health practice, while acknowledging the caveats of this process.