Use of the AGREE II instrument to evaluate critical care practice guidelines addressing pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Rationale, Aims and Objectives Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been evaluated for reporting transparency and methodological quality in a number of studies in various disciplines, but few studies have focused on critical care and none on pharmacotherapy‐related guidelines specifically. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of critical care CPGs with a focus on pharmacotherapy using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Method A cross‐sectional study of CPGs published from 2013 through August 2021 was conducted. Following establishment of interrater reliability, guidelines were independently evaluated by three reviewers to rate guidelines on criteria set forth by the AGREE II instrument. Domain scores and item scores were calculated using the AGREE II user manual, and results described with descriptive statistics. Results Out of 192 guidelines identified, 73 met inclusion criteria and were screened using the AGREE II instrument. Most guidelines were authored by a professional organization or government agency. Domain quality scores were calculated for each domain as recommended by the AGREE II instrument. Domain 4 (clarity of presentation) had the highest AGREE II domain score with a median score of 87.0% (interquartile range: 79.6%−92.6%). Domain 5 (applicability) received the lowest domain score with a mean score of 41.8 ± 21.1%. The majority of guidelines were recommended for use as published or with modifications, while only six guidelines (8.2%) were not recommended for use. Conclusions The majority of critical care guidelines that include pharmacotherapy recommendations were recommended for use by study authors when the AGREE II instrument was applied. While guidelines generally scored highly in clarity of presentation, additional time and effort should focus on providing solutions to guideline implementation and inclusion of patient preferences.

Strategies to preventing pressure injuries among intensive care unit patients mechanically ventilated in prone position: a systematic review and a Delphi study

“…The exclusion criteria were: (a) studies including children; (b) articles with unavailable full texts; (c) literature with low-quality evaluation results. We followed the update of the clinical guidelines research and evaluation system (AGREE II) to comprehensively judge the recommended levels of the guidelines ( 32 ). In addition, the JBI quality evaluation tool was used to evaluate the quality of the systematic evaluation, best practices, and evidence summary.…”

Strategies to Preventing pressure injuries among intensive care unit patients mechanically ventilated in prone position: a systematic review and a Delphi study

“…The exclusion criteria were: (a) studies including children; (b) articles with unavailable full texts; (c) literature with lowquality evaluation results. We followed the update of the clinical guidelines research and evaluation system (AGREE II) to comprehensively judge the recommended levels of the guidelines [32]. In addition, the JBI quality evaluation tool was used to evaluate the quality of the systematic evaluation, best practices, and evidence summary.…”