From: A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments
Author, year, country | Journal | Title | Purpose | Items | Quality domains |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brouwers et al. [5], 2010, Canada/ Europe | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care | To assess the process of guideline development | 23 | 6 (scope and purpose; stakeholder involvement; rigor of development; clarity of presentation; applicability; editorial independence) |
Cluzeau et al. [6], 1999, UK | International Journal for Quality in Health Care | Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines | To assess the quality of clinical guidelines | 37 | 3 (rigor of development; clarity of presentation; implementation issues) |
Grilli et al. [7], 2000, Italy | The Lancet | Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal | To review the quality of guidelines | 3 | None specified |
Hayward et al. [8], 1993, Canada/USA | Annals of Internal Medicine | More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines | To assess the applicability, importance, and validity of guidelines | 9 | None specified |
Helou et al. [9], 1998, Germany | Zeitschrift für Ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitätssicherung | Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in Germany: results of a systemic assessment of guidelines presented on the Internet | To assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines | 41 | 3 (rigor of development; content and format; applicability) |
Institute of Medicine [10], 1992, USA | - | Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use | To examine the soundness of guidelines and to encourage their systematic development | 46 | 7 (validity; clarity; multidisciplinary process; clinical flexibility; reliability and reproducibility; clinical adaptability; scheduled review) |
Liddl et al. [11], 1996, Australia | - | Method for evaluating research guideline evidence | To assess the validity of existing guidelines or to summarize the validity of guidelines during their development | 14 | 3 (descriptive information about the guideline; evaluation criteria for the guideline; overall assessment of the guideline) |
Marshall [12], 2000, Canada | The Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology | A critical approach to clinical practice guidelines | To evaluate the quality, relevance and effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines | 9 | None specified |
Mendelson [13], 1995, USA | Radiologic Clinics of North America | The development and meaning of appropriateness guidelines | To establish appropriateness criteria for guidelines | 8 | None specified |
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [14], 2008, Scotland | - | SIGN 50: A guideline developer’s handbook | To assess the process of guideline development | 23 | 6 (see Brouwers et al.) |
Selker [15], 1993, USA | The American Journal of Cardiology | Criteria for adoption in practice of medical practice guidelines | To establish criteria for adoption of practice guidelines for clinical practice | 8 | None specified |
Shaneyfelt et al. [16], 1999, USA | Journal of the American Medical Association | Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature | To review the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature | 25 | 3 (guideline development and format; evidence identification and summary; formulation of recommendations) |
Shiffman et al. [17], 2003, USA | Annals of Internal Medicine | Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization | To establish a standard for guideline reporting | 18 | None specified |
Ward, Grieco [18], 1996, Australia | Medical Journal of Australia | Why we need guidelines for guidelines: a study of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia | To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia | 18 | 8 (validity; reproducibility; applicability; clinical flexibility; clarity; multidisciplinary process; documentation; scheduled review) |