310
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis using the AGREE II instrument

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon &
Pages 383-390 | Received 30 Sep 2016, Accepted 19 Jan 2017, Published online: 01 Feb 2017
 

ABSTRACT

Background: High-quality evidence-based clinical practice guidelines can guide diagnosis and treatment to optimize outcomes. We aimed to systematically review the quality of international guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for appropriate guidelines up to 2016. Two gastroenterologists and two methodologists independently evaluated the documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

Results: Amongst the 25 records initially retrieved, four guidelines developed by recognized scientific organizations met inclusion criteria. AGREE II results varied widely across domains, but none achieved an overall assessment score of over 60%. Scope and purpose (61.82 ± 19.24%), clarity of presentation (57.13 ± 40.56%) and editorial independence (93.75 ± 1.69%) showed the highest mean rating, whereas stakeholder involvement (28.82 ± 11.19%), rigor of development (32.29 ± 12.02%) and applicability (21.62 ± 7.14%) did not reach quality thresholds. Intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement was excellent among appraisers (0.903), between gastroenterologists and methodologists (0.878) and for each individual guideline (0.838 to 0.955).

Conclusion: Clinical practice guidelines for EoE vary significantly in quality, are invariably limited and currently, none can be ‘strongly recommended’.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.