Limits...
Methodological Quality Appraisal of 27 Korean Guidelines Using a Scoring Guide Based on the AGREE II Instrument and a Web-based Evaluation.

Chang SG, Kim DI, Shin ES, Jang JE, Yeon JY, Lee YS - J. Korean Med. Sci. (2016)

Bottom Line: This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers.A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide.Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea .

ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers. A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide. The domain scores of the 27 guidelines were as following: the mean domain score was 82.7% (median 84.7%, ranging from 55.6% to 97.2%) for domain 1 (scope and purpose); 53.4% (median 56.9%, ranging from 11.1% to 95.8%) for domain 2 (stakeholder involvement); 63.0% (median 71.4%, ranging from 13.5% to 90.6%) for domain 3 (rigor of development); 88.9% (median 91.7%, ranging from 58.3% to 100.0%) for domain 4 (clarity of presentation); 30.1% (median 27.1%, ranging from 3.1% to 67.7%) for domain 5 (applicability); and 50.2% (median 58.3%, ranging from 0.0% to 93.8%) for domain 6 (editorial independence). Three domains including scope and purpose, rigor of development, and clarity of presentation were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score. Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score. Finally, of the 27 guidelines, 18 (66.7%) were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score for rigor of development and were categorized as high-quality guidelines.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

A framework for the systematic web-based quality appraisal of CPGs in Korea.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835591&req=5

Figure 1: A framework for the systematic web-based quality appraisal of CPGs in Korea.

Mentions: There were two steps to the appraisal process. First, each guideline was assessed by 4 appraisers who were qualified guideline evaluation members of the Executive Committee for CPGs, Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), to increase the reliability of the assessment. Second, 1 senior appraiser made summary statements on 23 items after adjusting for disagreement (Fig. 1). Disagreement was defined as more than 4 judgement score differences among appraisers on the same item using a 7-point rating scale. A score of 1 (strongly disagree) should be given when there is no information or if the concept is very poorly reported, and a score of 7 (strongly agree) should be given when the full criteria for ‘how to rate’ and/or ‘further considerations’ articulated in the user’s manual are met. For the level of judgement between 2 and 6, a score is assigned depending on the completeness and quality of the reporting. Scores increase as more criteria are met and considerations are addressed.


Methodological Quality Appraisal of 27 Korean Guidelines Using a Scoring Guide Based on the AGREE II Instrument and a Web-based Evaluation.

Chang SG, Kim DI, Shin ES, Jang JE, Yeon JY, Lee YS - J. Korean Med. Sci. (2016)

A framework for the systematic web-based quality appraisal of CPGs in Korea.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835591&req=5

Figure 1: A framework for the systematic web-based quality appraisal of CPGs in Korea.
Mentions: There were two steps to the appraisal process. First, each guideline was assessed by 4 appraisers who were qualified guideline evaluation members of the Executive Committee for CPGs, Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), to increase the reliability of the assessment. Second, 1 senior appraiser made summary statements on 23 items after adjusting for disagreement (Fig. 1). Disagreement was defined as more than 4 judgement score differences among appraisers on the same item using a 7-point rating scale. A score of 1 (strongly disagree) should be given when there is no information or if the concept is very poorly reported, and a score of 7 (strongly agree) should be given when the full criteria for ‘how to rate’ and/or ‘further considerations’ articulated in the user’s manual are met. For the level of judgement between 2 and 6, a score is assigned depending on the completeness and quality of the reporting. Scores increase as more criteria are met and considerations are addressed.

Bottom Line: This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers.A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide.Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea .

ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers. A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide. The domain scores of the 27 guidelines were as following: the mean domain score was 82.7% (median 84.7%, ranging from 55.6% to 97.2%) for domain 1 (scope and purpose); 53.4% (median 56.9%, ranging from 11.1% to 95.8%) for domain 2 (stakeholder involvement); 63.0% (median 71.4%, ranging from 13.5% to 90.6%) for domain 3 (rigor of development); 88.9% (median 91.7%, ranging from 58.3% to 100.0%) for domain 4 (clarity of presentation); 30.1% (median 27.1%, ranging from 3.1% to 67.7%) for domain 5 (applicability); and 50.2% (median 58.3%, ranging from 0.0% to 93.8%) for domain 6 (editorial independence). Three domains including scope and purpose, rigor of development, and clarity of presentation were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score. Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score. Finally, of the 27 guidelines, 18 (66.7%) were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score for rigor of development and were categorized as high-quality guidelines.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus