What Determines the Quality of Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines?

Dijkers, Marcel; Ward, Irene; Annaswamy, Thiru M.; Dedrick, Devin; Hoffecker, Lilian; Millis, Scott R.

doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001645

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional issue that needs to be addressed when applying CPGs is quality of the data supporting the recommendations. This was discussed in a recent publication ( Dijkers et al, 2020 ). It reviewed the published CPG literature and determined that there has been an increase in the number of CPGs published over the past 20 years, reaching more than 7000 listed in PubMed as of May, 2020.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…These characteristics are essential if we wish to bring new, research findings into practice. Possible hurdles to accomplishing this goal, especially in clinical rehabilitation research, include the small sample sizes in most studies, the personalized nature of the deficits and disabilities, lack standardized interventions and common data elements for functional outcomes and dependencies on patient reported outcomes ( Dijkers et al, 2020 ). These are challenges, but can be overcome and accommodated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When approaching the question of quality, they applied the AGREE II template to CPGs. They reported that all 6 domains of the AGREEII were good predictors of quality, and that Domain 3 (rigor of development) was the strongest predictor, suggesting emphasis on rigor of development will improve quality among CPGS ( Dijkers et al, 2020 ). Not all review processes apply the AGREE II template.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for treating people with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury

Gerber

Deshpande

Moosvi

et al. 2021

NRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines (CPGs) provide informed treatment recommendations from systematic reviews and assessment of the benefits and harms that are intended to optimize patient care. Review of CPGs addressing rehabilitation for people with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: Identify published, vetted, clinical practice guidelines that address rehabilitation for people with moderate/severe TBI. METHODS: Six data bases were accessed using key word search terms: “Traumatic Brain Injury” and “Clinical Practice Guidelines” and “Rehabilitation”. Further inclusions included “adult” and “moderate or severe”. Exclusions included: “mild” and “concussive injury”. Three reviewers read abstracts and manuscripts for final inclusion. The AGREE II template was applied for additional appraisal. RESULTS: There were 767 articles retrieved using the search terms, 520 were eliminated because of content irrelevance; and 157 did not specify rehabilitation treatment or did not follow a process for CPGs. A total of 17 CPGs met all criteria and only 4 of these met all AGREE II criteria. CONCLUSION: There are few CPGs addressing rehabilitation for people with moderate/severe TBI. More interventional trials are needed to determine treatment effectiveness. Timely and methodologically sound vetting of studies are needed to ensure CPG reliability and facilitate access to quality, effective treatment for people with moderate/severe TBI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for treating people with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury

Gerber

Deshpande

Moosvi

et al. 2021

NRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus the quality of rehabilitation CPGs may be improved by addressing key domains [28]. Users and developers are encouraged to refer to the AGREE II reporting checklist to assure quality of reporting [17], but reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms [29].…”

Section: Gaps In the Agree II Tool And Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study

Bargeri

Iannicelli

Castellini

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Understanding ‘quality’ in adult traumatic brain injury rehabilitation from the perspectives of different stakeholders: a participatory mixed methods study

Murray,

Worley,

Luker

et al. 2024

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What Determines the Quality of Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines?

Abstract: Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Cited by 6 publications

References 58 publications

Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for treating people with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury

Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for treating people with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury

AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study

Understanding ‘quality’ in adult traumatic brain injury rehabilitation from the perspectives of different stakeholders: a participatory mixed methods study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About