ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine what factors determine the quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: Six databases were searched for articles that had applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II quality assessment tool to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines. The 573 deduplicated abstracts were independently screened by two authors, resulting in 81 articles, the full texts of which were independently screened by two authors for Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II application to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines, resulting in a final selection of 40 reviews appraising 504 clinical practice guidelines. Data were extracted from these by one author and checked by a second. Data on each clinical practice guideline included the six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores, as well as the two Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II global evaluations. RESULTS: All six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores were statistically significant predictors of overall clinical practice guideline quality rating; D3 (rigor of development) was the strongest and D1 (scope and purpose) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, R2 = 0.53). Five of the six domain scores were significant predictors of the clinical practice guideline use recommendation, with D3 the strongest predictor and D5 (applicability) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, pseudo R2 = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines may be improved by addressing key domains such as rigor of development.
Subject(s)
Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Quality Assurance, Health Care , HumansABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), specifically with respect to their applicability. DATA SOURCES: The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for papers published between 2017 and 2019 that applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) CPG quality assessment tool to rehabilitation CPGs. STUDY SELECTION: Deduplicated abstracts (N=449) were independently screened by 2 authors, resulting in 47 articles. Independent screening of 47 full texts by 2 authors resulted in a final selection of 40 papers appraising 544 CPGs. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 1 author using a pretested Excel form and were checked by a second author. Key data on the review papers included: purpose, methods used for finding and appraising CPGs, and observations and conclusions on CPG quality, specifically applicability. Key data on each CPG included the 6 AGREE II domain scores or 23 item scores, as well as 2 global evaluations. DATA SYNTHESIS: The mean AGREE II domain scores for the 544 CPGs (all on a 0-100 scale) were: scope and purpose (72), stakeholder involvement (53), rigor of development (56), clarity of presentation (71), applicability (34), and editorial independence (50). Only 36% of CPGs were recommended without modification. The 40 review authors generally stated that all or most of the CPGs they appraised were poor or mediocre, especially with respect to applicability. They only infrequently pointed out what information, going beyond that specified in AGREE II, would enhance applicability. CONCLUSIONS: CPGs in principle are an ideal means to move knowledge obtained from clinical research into practice. Our review of reviews of rehabilitation CPGs shows that they commonly have deficits, especially in terms of applicability. Much work needs to be done by guideline developers to make it easier for the average rehabilitation organization and clinician to implement CPGs in daily practice.
