指南
质量(理念)
批判性评价
梅德林
医学物理学
医学
计算机科学
德国的
替代医学
病理
哲学
考古
认识论
政治学
法学
历史
作者
Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer,Ulrich Siering,Edmund Neugebauer,Ulrike Lampert,Michaela Eikermann
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.009
摘要
Objectives To investigate whether Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II users apply a cut-off based on standardized domain scores or overall guideline quality to distinguish between high- and low-quality guidelines, as well as to investigate which criteria they use to generate this cut-off and which type of cut-off they apply. Study Design and Setting We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, and the HTA-database for German- and English-language studies appraising guidelines with AGREE II. Information on cut-offs was extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results We identified 118 relevant publications. Thirty-nine (33%) used a cut-off, of which 24 (62%) used a 2-step and 13 (33%) used a 3-step approach. The cut-off for high quality lay between 50% and 70% (2-step) and 60% and 83% (3-step) of the highest possible rating. Twenty-four (62%) publications applied a cut-off based on standardized domain scores and 7 (18%) based on overall guideline quality. Eleven (28%) applied cut-offs to derive the recommendation for guideline use. Conclusion A third of AGREE II users apply a cut-off to distinguish between high- and low-quality guidelines, often without clearly describing how the cut-off is generated. Many users might welcome a clear distinction between high- and low-quality guidelines; specifying a cut-off for this purpose might be useful.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI