Background The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is a globally recognized leader in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic education. Clinical guidelines are one important focus of the AAOS' educational efforts. Although their recommendations sometimes generate controversy, a critical appraisal of the overall quality of these guidelines has not, to our knowledge, been reported. Questions/purposes We wished to assess the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II (Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care) instrument. Methods All 14 guidelines available on the AAOS website as of August 2, 2013 were evaluated. Appraisal was performed by three reviewers, independently, using the AGREE II instrument. This is an internationally recognized and validated assessment tool for evaluating guideline quality. Interrater reliability was calculated and descriptive statistics were performed. Strong interrater reliability was shown using a Spearman's Rho test (correlation coefficient C 0.95). Results The overall results for AGREE II domains across all 14 guidelines were: scope and purpose (median score, 95%), stakeholder involvement (median score, 83%), rigor of development (median score, 94%), clarity of presentation (median score, 92%), applicability (median score, 48%), and editorial independence (median score, 79%). Conclusions This study showed that the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines is high, however their applicability was found to be poor. The value of guidelines that have a high quality but that are difficult for clinicians to implement is questionable. Numerous suggestions have been proposed to improve applicability including; health economist involvement in guideline production, implementation of pilot studies and audit to monitor uptake of the guidelines and clinician feedback sessions and barrier analysis studies. Future AAOS guidelines should consider and implement steps that can improve their applicability.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study. Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. 'Scope and Purpose' (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and 'Clarity of Presentation' (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. 'Applicability' (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and 'Editorial Independence' (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores. These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as 'Applicability' and 'Editorial Independence', need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

No abstract