Searchable Title

Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines Using the AGREE Instrument: Comparison Between Data Obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II. Copyright: Creative Commons License.

Reference Type

Journal Article

Authors, Section

Seto, K.; Matsumoto, K.; Kitazawa, T.; Fujita, S.; Hanaoka, S.; Hasegawa, T.

Title, Section

Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines Using the AGREE Instrument: Comparison Between Data Obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II. Copyright: Creative Commons License.

Publication Year

2017

Journal Title

BMC Research Notes

Volume

10

Issue

1

Pages

716

Availability

online

PMID

PMID: 29216903

DOI

10.1186/s13104-017-3041-7

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) is a representative, quantitative evaluation tool for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Recently, AGREE was revised (AGREE II). The continuity of evaluation data obtained from the original version (AGREE I) has not yet been demonstrated. The present study investigated the relationship between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II to evaluate the continuity between the two measurement tools. RESULTS: An evaluation team consisting of three trained librarians evaluated 68 CPGs issued in 2011-2012 in Japan using AGREE I and AGREE II. The correlation coefficients for the six domains were: (1) scope and purpose 0.758; (2) stakeholder involvement 0.708; (3) rigor of development 0.982; (4) clarity of presentation 0.702; (5) applicability 0.919; and (6) editorial independence 0.971. The item "Overall Guideline Assessment" was newly introduced in AGREE II. This global item had a correlation coefficient of 0.628 using the six AGREE I domains, and 0.685 using the 23 items. Our results suggest that data obtained from AGREE I can be transferred to AGREE II, and the "Overall Guideline Assessment" data can be determined with high reliability using a standardized score of the 23 items.

Share

COinS