Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality
Abstract
Objective
To assess the quality of endocrine guidelines developed in North America.
Study Design and Setting
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all endocrine clinical practice guidelines developed in North America and published between January 1, 2007 and January 13, 2010. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.
Results
One hundred eligible endocrine guidelines had high scores in the scope-and-purpose (mean pooled standardized score [MPSD] of 82
±
14) and clarity domains (MPSD
=
64
±
17) and low scores in the stakeholder-involvement (MPSD of 36
±
12) and editorial independence domains (MPSD
=
36
±
36). Only 29% of guidelines scored above 60% for more than three domains. Rigor-of-development domain score was significantly higher in guidelines using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, nondiabetes guidelines, and in published in-print vs. online publications.
Conclusions
The quality of endocrine guidelines published in 2007–2009 is moderate and can be improved by (1) using methodologically sound development frameworks, (2) increasing stakeholder involvement, and (3) paying more attention to resource implications of guideline implementation.
Keywords: Endocrine guideline, Clinical practice, AGREE instrument, Quality, Systematic review, GRADE
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Conflict of interest: Dr’s Murad and Montori have received funding from the Endocrine Society to conduct systematic reviews and support the development of clinical practice guidelines, and they are both members of the GRADE Working Group. Dr’s Murad and Montori participated in the initial study conceptualization and protocol development. Guideline evaluation and data collection were conducted by Dr Bancos and Ms. Cheng who had no prior participation in any guidelines.
PII: S0895-4356(11)00324-6
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.014
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
