Evaluating clinical practice guidelines developed for the management of thyroid nodules and thyroid cancers and assessing the reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument

Abstract

We identified three clinical guidelines that obtained high overall assessment scores and were recommended for use in practice. Our findings have important implications for those developing clinical guidelines, especially as clarity and presentation significantly influenced the participants' assessment of the guidelines. The developers should ensure that the recommendations are presented clearly and unambiguously, and flowcharts, algorithms and other tools are developed to help the users in applying the recommendations into practice. The optimal number of appraisers for each guideline is four. Further work is needed to improve the 'applicability' domain of the AGREE.

Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Procedural Pain: A Systematic Review

“…However, the scope and purpose and clarity of presentation domains received the highest average domain scores across all guidelines. This finding was consistent with systematic reviews that evaluated guidelines on pelvic pain management, 39 thyroid cancers, 43 and acute low back 46 in adults using the AGREE or AGREE II Instruments and reported a similar trend in domain scores.…”

“…Guideline evaluation using the instrument has been reported in other reviews of guidelines. [39][40][41][42][43] To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating pediatric pain clinical practice guidelines.…”

Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality

“…None of these changes significantly impacts our conclusions. When compared with a very recent published evaluation of seven endocrine guidelines, our review had a much larger sample size and a larger scope [7]. Lastly, we acknowledge that our inferences about the quality of endocrinology guidelines in North America do not apply to guidelines developed in other parts of the world.…”

Models in the balance: evidence‐based medicine versus evidence‐informed individualized care

“…The argumentation of this Editorial Introduction and the 41 papers of this issue [43–83] together constitute the 13th thematic edition of the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , building upon the work of the previous 12 [12–23]. We have entitled this year's edition ‘Models in the Balance: Evidence‐based Medicine versus Evidence‐informed Individualised Care’, because we believe that the time is now right to institute a debate on the need to progress towards the formulation of personalized models of care informed , but not based , on the E of EBM, representing a Hegelian shift in understanding following some 20 years of intensive philosophical and clinical argumentation on the nature of knowledge and action in clinical practice.…”