Domain | Item | Mean score (range) |
---|---|---|
1 (Scope and purpose) | • The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described | 3.7 (2.3 to 4.0) |
• The clinical question(s) covered by the guideline is(are) specifically described | 3.6 (2.7 to 4.0) | |
• The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described | 3.7 (3.3 to 4.0) | |
Overall standardized score, % | 89.5 (66.7 to 100.0) | |
2 (Stakeholder involvement) | • The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups | 3.3 (1.3 to 4.0) |
• The patients' views and preferences have been sought | 2.7 (1.3 to 4.0) | |
• The target users of the guideline are clearly defined | 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
• The guideline has been piloted among end users | 1.1 (1.0 to 1.7) | |
Overall standardized score, %) | 50.9 (8.3 to 75.0) | |
3 (Rigour of development) | • Systematic methods were used to search for evidence | 2.6 (1.0 to 4.0) |
• The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described | 2.8 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
• The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described | 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
• The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations | 3.1 (1.7 to 4.0) | |
• There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence | 3.1 (1.3 to 4.0) | |
• The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts before its publication | 2.3 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
• A procedure for updating the guideline is provided | 1.7 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
Overall standardized score, % | 55.5 (7.9 to 96.8) | |
4 (Clarity and presentation) | • The recommendations are specific and unambiguous | 3.4 (2.3 to 4.0) |
• The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented | 3.4 (2.3 to 4.0) | |
• Key recommendations are easily identifiable | 3.7 (2.7 to 4.0) | |
• The guideline is supported with tools for application | 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
Overall standardized score, % | 79.7 (55.6 to 100.0) | |
5 (Applicability) | • The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed | 2.2 (1.0 to 4.0) |
• The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations have been considered | 2.4 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
• The guideline presents key review criteria for monitoring and/or audit purposes | 1.7 (1.0 to 3.7) | |
• Overall standardized score, % | 37.0 (0.0 to 88.9) | |
6 (Editorial independence) | • The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body | 2.2 (1.0 to 4.0) |
• Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded | 2.6 (1.0 to 4.0) | |
Overall standardized score, % | 47.4 (0.0 to 100.0) |