Technical Quality and Clinical Acceptability of a Utilization Review Guideline for Occupational Conditions: ODG® Treatment Guidelines by the Work Loss Data Institute

Nuckols, Teryl K.; Shetty, Kanaka; Raaen, Laura; Khodyakov, Dmitry

doi:10.7249/rr1819

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, participants reported that the CPGs omitted common clinical situations and contained recommendations of uncertain clinical validity. Similar results have been found with disability-related CPGs …”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Since the release of AGREE II, studies have reported that high AGREE II scores do not guarantee that the resulting CPG recommendations are optimal. [23][24][25][26][27] For example, Nuckols et al 24 evaluated the technical quality and acceptability of 5 musculoskeletal CPGs. Use of the AGREE II tool resulted in high quality scores (eg, rigor domain scores >80%).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar results have been found with disability-related CPGs. 26 These studies suggest that a distinction exists between user perceptions of a CPG report and the report's recommendations. Hence, a barrier may exist if users rely solely on the AGREE II quality scores in making decisions about which CPG recommendations to implement or which CPGs to adapt to a specific context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. OBJECTIVE To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. EXPOSURES Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. RESULTS A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scores on the domain of Editorial independence show an ‘all or nothing’ pattern across CPGs. Other studies 5,6,8,9,35 similarly show relatively lower scores on this domain. 0% scores on this domain do not necessarily indicate a lack of editorial independence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Evidence‐basing for quality improvement; bringing clinical practice guidelines closer to their promise of improving care practices

Moleman

Jerak-Zuiderent²,

Bovenkamp

et al. 2022

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become central to efforts to change clinical practice and improve the quality of health care. Despite growing attention for rigorous development methodologies, it remains unclear what contribution CPGs make to quality improvement. Aim: This mixed methods study examines guideline quality in relation to the availability of certain types of evidence and reflects on the implications of CPGs' promise to improve the quality of care practices. Methods: The quality of 62 CPGs was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Findings were discussed in 19 followup interviews to examine how different quality aspects were considered during development. Results: The AGREE assessment showed that while some quality criteria were met, CPGs have limited coverage of domains such as stakeholder involvement and applicability, which generally lack a 'strong' evidence base (e.g., randomized controlled trials [RCT]). Qualitative findings uncovered barriers that impede the consolidation of evidence-based guideline development and quality improvement including guideline scoping based on the patient-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) question format and a lack of clinical experts involved in evidence appraisal. Developers used workarounds to include quality considerations that lack a strong base of RCT evidence, which often ended up in separate documents or appendices. Conclusion: Findings suggest that CPGs mostly fail to integrate different epistemologies needed to inform the quality improvement of clinical practice. To bring CPGs closer to their promise, guideline scoping should maintain a focus on the most pertinent quality issues that point developers toward the most fitting knowledge for the question at hand, stretching beyond the PICO format. To address questions that lack a strong evidence base, developers actually need to appeal to other sources of knowledge, such

show abstract

“…8 For instance, AGREE II was used to appraise official disability guidelines, and achieved a high score (eg, the clarity of the presentation domain score was 75%; scale: 0-100%). 19 However, expert clinicians reported that the recommendations have less utility in the non-guideline development setting. In addition, for several themes, the content was of doubtful https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S378684…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality and Clinical Applicability of Recommendations in Ostomy Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Li¹,

Zhang²,

Wu³

et al. 2022

RMHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To systematically search ostomy clinical practice guidelines, critically assess their quality and clinical applicability of recommendations, and summarize the recommendations. Design Systematic review. Data Sources The PubMed, ProQuest and CINAHL databases, eight guideline databases, and three ostomy institution websites were searched on September 3, 2021. Review Methods Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX) were used to assess the guideline. Results The initial search identified 1475 documents. Of these, 27 full-text documents were reviewed. Finally, 10 guidelines were included. Among these, the 2019 Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) guidelines had the highest total scores using AGREE II and AGREE-REX. The 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and 2018 European Hernia Society (EHS) were also ranked as high-quality and evaluated as “recommended.” The median of the “applicability” domain was the lowest (45%) among the six AGREE II domains. The median of the “values and preferences” domain was the lowest (38%) among the three AGREE-REX domains. In total, 172 recommendations were summarized and parastomal hernia received the most attention among the recommendations. Conclusion The quality of the 10 clinical practice guidelines varied widely. The three identified high-quality guidelines might be appropriate first choices in daily ostomy care and management practice and can be tailored to the local context. Ostomy guidelines require further improvement in the “applicability” and “values and preferences” domains. No Patient or Public Contribution This review only searched and evaluated relevant documents, so such details do not apply to this review.

show abstract

Technical Quality and Clinical Acceptability of a Utilization Review Guideline for Occupational Conditions: ODG® Treatment Guidelines by the Work Loss Data Institute

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

Evidence‐basing for quality improvement; bringing clinical practice guidelines closer to their promise of improving care practices

The Quality and Clinical Applicability of Recommendations in Ostomy Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About