Protocol of an interdisciplinary consensus project aiming to develop an AGREE II extension for guidelines in surgery

Abstract

IntroductionAppraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) is an instrument that informs development, reporting and assessment of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has demonstrated the need for improvement in methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines specifically in surgery. We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension document for application in surgical guidelines.Methods and analysisWe have performed a structured literature review and assessment of guidelines in surgery using the AGREE II instrument. In exploratory analyses, we have identified factors associated with guideline quality. We have performed reliability and factor analyses to inform the development of an extension document. We will summarise this information and present it to a Delphi panel of stakeholders. We will perform iterative Delphi rounds and we will summarise the final results to develop the extension instrument in a dedicated consensus conference.Ethics and disseminationFunding bodies will not be involved in the development of the instrument. Research ethics committee and Health Research Authority approval was waived, since this is a professional staff study only and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by reassigning functions or replacing participants with relevant conflicts. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer reviewed journals, the funders’ websites, social media and direct contact with guideline development organisations and peer-reviewed journals that publish guidelines.

Guidelines, guidelines and more guidelines for haemorrhoid treatment: A review to sort the wheat from the chaff

“…However, guideline developers have been shown to give even lower quality ratings than clinicians or policy makers using the AGREE II instrument [11]. A final potential weakness is the fact that the AGREE II instrument has not been designed specifically for surgical guidelines and compliance with all aspects of several parameters of the instrument is not always possible [43].…”

Qualidade metodológica das diretrizes de tratamento da doença arterial obstrutiva carotídea: uma avaliação sistemática com a utilização do instrumento AGREE II

“…Isso é consistente com estudos que confirmam a validade da AGREE II como ferramenta de avaliação de DCs em diversas especialidades médicas, mesmo quando há algum grau de heterogeneidade entre os avaliadores 35 . Algumas críticas à aplicabilidade do instrumento AGREE II em DCs de doenças cirúrgicas são destacadas em uma proposta de protocolo recente 36 , que ressalta a dificuldade em se abordar a custo-efetividade por diferentes motivos: por ser um item muito escasso na literatura cirúrgica, pela variabilidade em experiência cirúrgica em diversos países, pela necessidade de aplicação do instrumento em diferentes ambientes de saúde e pelos comparadores comuns para atender aos detalhes das intervenções mais complexas. Esse protocolo propôs, então, uma extensão ao instrumento AGREE para avaliação de DCs de doenças cirúrgicas, com a inclusão de uma lista de verificação com itens específicos relacionados às peculiaridades das mesmas.…”

AGREE‐S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions – United European Gastroenterology and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery methodological guide

“…The project was named ‘Guideline Assessment Project (GAP): Filling the GAP in surgical guidelines’ and consisted of three parts, GAP I, GAP II and GAP III. The steering group developed a project protocol in advance 17 …”