An independent assessment of chiropractic practice guidelines

Cates, Jeffrey R.; Young, David N.; Guerriero, David J.; Jahn, Warren T.; Armine, Jesse P.; Korbett, Alan B.; Bowerman, Daniel S.; Porter, Robert; Sandman, Terry D.; King, Robert A.

doi:10.1016/s0161-4754(03)00010-1

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both internal consistency and interrater reliability are well in line with the original validation study by the AGREE Collaboration 8) . This is in agreement with other recent studies that have tested AGREE in medical or paramedical fields of health care where the original instrument was not developed [24][25][26] . It should be kept in mind that the instrument evaluates process aspects of the quality of a guideline and not the content but also measures how well the guideline development process is reported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In the field of occupational health, Cates et al 25) recently evaluated the American ACOEM Guidelines with the use of AGREE and concluded that future ACOEM guidelines should incorporate better reporting and give closer attention to the guideline process. Figure 1 shows the comparison between the domain scores between the American and Dutch occupational health practice guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Hulshof

Hoenen²

2007

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptance, validity, reliability and feasibility of the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines and REsearch and Evaluation) instrument to assess the quality of evidence-based practice guidelines for occupational physicians. In total, 6 practice guidelines of the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine (NVAB) were appraised by 20 occupational health professionals and experts in guideline development or implementation. Although appraisers often disagreed on individual item scores, the internal consistency and interrater reliability for most domains was sufficient. The AGREE criteria were in general considered relevant and no major suggestions for additional items for use in the context of occupational health were brought up. The domain scores for the individual guidelines show a wide variety: 'applicability' had on average the lowest mean score (53%) while 'scope and purpose' had the highest one (87%). Low scores indicate where improvements are possible and necessary, e.g. by providing more information about the development. Key experts in occupational health report that AGREE is a relevant and easy to use instrument to evaluate quality aspects and the included criteria provide a good framework to develop or update evidence-based practice guidelines in the field of occupational health.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Hulshof

Hoenen²

2007

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings suggest that the AGREE instrument is also reliable and valid for this purpose, and this is in agreement with other recent studies that have tested AGREE in fields of health care where the original instrument was not developed [8,9]. It should be kept in mind that the instrument evaluates aspects of the quality of a guideline but also measures how well the guideline development process is reported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Evidence-based practice guidelines in OHS: Are they AGREE-able?

Hulshof

Hoenen²

2006

International Congress Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The methodologic quality of current practice guidelines must be improved (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). For many reasons, the methodologic quality of diagnostic guidelines is poorer than that of therapeutic guidelines, particularly in the field of laboratory medicine (10,21,22 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict between Guideline Methodologic Quality and Recommendation Validity: A Potential Problem for Practitioners

Watine¹,

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is not clear if good methodologic quality in current practice guidelines necessarily leads to more valid recommendations, i.e., those that are supported with consistent research evidence or, when evidence is conflicting or lacking, with sufficient consensus among the guideline development team. To help clarify this issue, we assessed whether there is a link between methodologic quality and recommendation validity in practice guidelines for the use of laboratory tests in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of data on laboratory tests in NSCLC published in English or in French within the last 10 years and retrieved 11 practice guidelines for the use of these tests. The guidelines

show abstract

An independent assessment of chiropractic practice guidelines

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Evidence-based practice guidelines in OHS: Are they AGREE-able?

Conflict between Guideline Methodologic Quality and Recommendation Validity: A Potential Problem for Practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About