Evaluation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

References

• Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:302–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet. 1997;350:485–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minear MA, Lewis C, Pradhan S, et al. Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:959–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jani J, Rego de Sousa MJ, Benachi A. Cell-free DNA testing: how to choose which laboratory to use?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:515–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan A, Sachs A, Toler T, et al. NIPT: Current utilization and implications for the future of prenatal genetic counseling. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34:850–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratacós E, Nicolaides K. Clinical perspective of cell-free DNA testing for fetal aneuploidies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;35:151–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1438–1450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo Vecchio A, Giannattasio A, Duggan C, et al. Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for acute gastroenteritis in children with the AGREE instrument. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011;52:183–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993;342:1317–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on standards for developing trustworthy. Clinical practice guidelines, graham R1. Clinical practice guidelines We Can Trust – Report Brief. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Alonso-Coello P, Irfan A, Solà I, et al. The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knai C, Brusamento S, Legido-Quigley H, et al. Systematic review of the methodological quality of clinical guideline development for the management of chronic disease in Europe. Health Policy. 2012;107:157–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgers JS, Cluzeau FA, Hanna SE, et al. Characteristics of high-quality guidelines: evaluation of 86 clinical guidelines developed in ten European countries and Canada. Int J Tech Assessment Health Care. 2003;19:148–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong JJ, Goldfarb AM, Instrum RS, et al. Improvement evident but still necessary in clinical practice guideline quality: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigna-Taglianti F, Vineis P, Liberati A, et al. Quality of systematic reviews used in guidelines for oncology practice. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:691–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman A, Lavis J. Use of evidence in WHO recommendations. Lancet. 2007;369:1883–1889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polus S, Lerberg P, Vogel J, et al. Appraisal of WHO guidelines in maternal health using the AGREE II assessment tool. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AGREE C. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:18–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grol R, Cluzeau FA, Burgers JS. Clinical practice guidelines: towards better quality guidelines and increased international collaboration. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:S4–SS8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermid JC, Brooks D, Solway S, et al. Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cates JR, Young DN, Bowerman DS, et al. An independent AGREE evaluation of the Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines. Spine J. 2006;6:72–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kinnunen-Amoroso M, Pasternack I, Mattila S, et al. Evaluation of the practice guidelines of Finnish Institute of Occupational Health with AGREE instrument. Ind Health. 2009;47:689–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nast A, Spuls P, Ormerod A. A critical appraisal of evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris: “AGREE-ing”on a common base for European evidence-based psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:782–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Agree II: Advancing guideline development, reporting, and evaluation in health care. Prev Med. 2010;51:421–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legido-Quigley H, Panteli D, Brusamento S, et al. Clinical guidelines in the European Union: mapping the regulatory basis, development, quality control, implementation and evaluation across member states. Health Policy. 2012;107:146–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tozzoli R, Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, et al. Guidelines for the laboratory use of autoantibody tests in the diagnosis and monitoring of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:316–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Don-Wauchope AC, Sievenpiper JL, Hill SA, et al. Applicability of the AGREE II instrument in evaluating the development process and quality of current National Academy of clinical biochemistry guidelines. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1426–1437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Française de Biologie Clinique (SFBC), Fonfrède M, Couaillac JP, et al. Critical appraisal of microbiology guidelines endorsed by two professional organisations: Société Française De Microbiologie (SFM) and American Society of Microbiology (ASM). EJIFCC. 2012;23:28–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nachamkin I, Kirn TJ, Westblade LF, et al. Assessing clinical microbiology practice guidelines: American society for MicrobiologyAd HocCommittee on evidence-based laboratory Medicine practice guidelines assessment. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:3183–3193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CADTH. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of the cost effectiveness and guidelines. Ottawa, (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• UK National Screening Committee. UK NSC Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Recommendation 2016; 1–1 Available from: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/fetalanomalies
   Google Scholar
• Chitty L, Cameron L, Daley R, et al. RAPID non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) evaluation study. In: National Institute for Health Research, editor. Executive summary. 2015. p. 1–8. Available from: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/fetalanomalies
   Google Scholar
• UK National Screening Committee. Consultation for Cell-Free DNA Testing in the First Trimester in the Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme 2015:1–6. Available from: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/fetalanomalies
   Google Scholar
• UK National Screening Committee. Screening for cfDNA in pregnancy- an evidence review. Compiled Comments 2016:1–151. Available from: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/fetalanomalies
   Google Scholar
• UK National Screening Committee. UK National Screening Committee. cfDNA testing in the fetal anomaly screening programme – Annexes 2015;1–25. Available from: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/fetalanomalies
   Google Scholar
• Taylor-Phillips S, Freeman K, Geppert J, et al. Systematic Review and Cost-Consequence Assessment of Cell-Free DNA Testing for T21, T18 and T13 in the UK – Final Report. In: UK National Screening Committee, editor. p. 1–175.
   Google Scholar
• Practice bulletin. No. 163: screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:e123–e127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2016;18:1056–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 1: Performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ. 2010;182:1045–1052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 2: Assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ. 2010;182:E472–E478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Zhao K, Bai Z, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for hypertension: evaluation of quality using the AGREE II instrument. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2016;16:439–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tejani T, Mubeen S, Seehra J, et al. An exploratory quality assessment of orthodontic clinical guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39:654–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann-Eszer W, Siering U, Neugebauer EAM, et al. Is there a cut-off for high-quality guidelines? A systematic analysis of current guideline appraisals using the AGREE II instrument. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;95:1–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Agree II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182:E839–E842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AGREE Next Steps Consortium. The AGREE. II Instrument (Electronic Version) 2009:1–56 [cited 2017 Mar 10]; Available from: http://www.agreetrust.org
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Graham R, Mancher M, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, et al. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:1–1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie IS, Wei L, Paterson KR, et al. Cluster randomized trials of prescription medicines or prescribing policy: public and general practitioner opinions in Scotland. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:354–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999;281:1900–1905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabharwal S, Patel NK, Gauher S, et al. High methodologic quality but poor applicability: assessment of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1982–1988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabharwal S, Patel V, Nijjer SS, et al. Guidelines in cardiac clinical practice: evaluation of their methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument. J R Soc Med. 2013;106:315–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, et al. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet. 2000;355:103–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Giles J. Cash interests taint drug advice. Nature. 2005;437:1070–1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC. Do guidelines offer implementation advice to target users? A systematic review of guideline applicability. BMJ Open. 2015;55:e007047.
   Google Scholar
• Siering U, Eikermann M, Hausner E, et al. Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review. Plos One. 2013;8:e82915–e82915–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radwan M, Akbari Sari A, Rashidian A, et al. Appraising the methodological quality of the clinical practice guideline for diabetes mellitus using the AGREE II instrument: a methodological evaluation. JRSM Open. 2017;8:205427041668267.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann-Eszer W, Siering U, Neugebauer EAM, et al. Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0174831–e0174831–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar