Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application

Brouwers, Melissa; Kho, Michelle E.; Browman, George P.; Burgers, Jako; Cluzeau, Françoise; Feder, Gene; Fervers, Béatrice; Graham, Ian D.; Hanna, Steven; Makarski, Julie

doi:10.1503/cmaj.091716

Cited by 423 publications

(377 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

356

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 In the second study, the consortium evaluated the construct validity of the tool and designed and evaluated new supporting documentation aimed at facilitating efficient and accurate use of the tool. 7 The following key findings emerged from the two studies:…”

Section: Redesign Of Agreementioning

confidence: 98%

“…6,7 As part of the first study, the consortium introduced a new seven-point response scale and evaluated its performance and measurement properties, analyzed the usefulness of the AGREE items for decisions made by different stakeholders, and systematically elicited stakeholders' recommendations for changes to the AGREE items and domains. 6 In the second study, the consortium evaluated the construct validity of the tool and designed and evaluated new supporting documentation aimed at facilitating efficient and accurate use of the tool.…”

Section: Redesign Of Agreementioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,7 Based on these results and three rounds of interpretation and consensus by the consortium, several refinements were made to the items and supporting documents, culminating in the release of AGREE II, which consists of 23 items, two overall assessment items and a user's manual (see Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca /cgi /content /full /cmaj .090449 /DC1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

Brouwers

Kho²,

Browman

et al. 2010

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Self Cite

2,868

2,727

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E839C linical practice guidelines, which are systematically developed statements aimed at helping people make clinical, policy-related and system-related decisions, 1,2 frequently vary widely in quality. 3,4 A strategy was needed to differentiate among guidelines and ensure that those of the highest quality are implemented.An international team of guideline developers and researchers, known as the AGREE Collaboration (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation), was established to create a generic instrument to assess the process of guideline development and reporting of this process in the guideline. Based on rigorous methodologies, the result of the collaboration's efforts was the original AGREE instrument, which is a 23-item tool comprising six quality-related domains that was released in 2003 (www.agreetrust.org).As with any new assessment tool, ongoing development was required to improve its measurement properties, usefulness to a range of stakeholders and ease of implementation. Over the years, a number of issues were identified. For example, the original four-point response scale used to answer each item of the AGREE instrument is not in compliance with methodologic standards of health measurement design. This noncompliance threatens the performance and reliability of the instrument. 5 In addition, data on the usefulness of the AGREE items has never been gathered systematically from the perspectives of different groups of users. Further, we were interested in identifying strategies to make the evaluation process more efficient, such as reducing the number of items or the number of required raters, while ensuring the instrument was reliable and valid. Therefore, an exploration of the role of shorter versions of the AGREE instrument, comprising fewer items that are tailored to the unique priorities of different stakeholders, was warranted. Finally, there was a need to establish the fundamentals of construct validity -in other words, whether the AGREE items could measure what they purport to measure, and that is variability in quality of practice guidelines. Redesign of AGREEIn response to these issues, the AGREE Next Steps Consortium was established and undertook two studies.6,7 As part of the first study, the consortium introduced a new seven-point response scale and evaluated its performance and measurement properties, analyzed the usefulness of the AGREE items for decisions made by different stakeholders, and systematically elicited stakeholders' recommendations for changes to the AGREE items and domains. 6 In the second study, the consortium evaluated the construct validity of the tool and designed and evaluated new supporting documentation aimed at facilitating efficient and accurate use of the tool. 7The following key findings emerged from the two studies:• Ratings of the quality of the AGREE domains are good predictors of outcomes associated with implementation of guidelines. 6• Participants (i.e., guideline developers or researchers, policy-makers, and clinicians) evaluated AGREE items and dom...

show abstract

Section: Redesign Of Agreementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Redesign Of Agreementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

Brouwers

Kho²,

Browman

et al. 2010

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Self Cite

2,868

2,727

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A range of different evidencebased methods for CPG activities have been established (e.g. Schünemann et al, [1] Brouwers et al, [2] Brouwers et al, [3] Hillier et al [4] and Guyatt et al [5] ), and there is common agreement in these that poorly conceived CPG team composition and management can jeopardise CPG integrity. Recognised CPG initiatives such as the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) (http:// www.sign.ac.uk) and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance) therefore provide guidance on CPG team construction and management.…”

Section: South African Guidelines Excellence (Sage): Efficient Effecmentioning

confidence: 99%

South African Guidelines Excellence (SAGE): Efficient, effective and unbiased clinical practice guideline teams

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…É uma ferramenta que avalia o rigor metodológico e a transparência com que uma diretriz clínica é desenvolvida 3,6 . A ferramenta possibilita o julgamento sobre o método utilizado para elaborar as diretrizes clínicas, o conteúdo das recomendações finais e os fatores que estão ligados à sua aceitação.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Adaptação transcultural do instrumento Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) para avaliação de diretrizes clínicas

Khan

Stein

2014

Cad. Saúde Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application

Cited by 423 publications

References 7 publications

AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

South African Guidelines Excellence (SAGE): Efficient, effective and unbiased clinical practice guideline teams

Adaptação transcultural do instrumento Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) para avaliação de diretrizes clínicas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About