Skip to main content

Table 1 Proportion of Guidelines Meeting Quality Criteria

From: Systematic assessment of the quality of osteoporosis guidelines

Quality Criteria* % CPGs where 2 or more appraisers said "yes"
Items included in Dimension 1: Rigour of Method Development
1 Is the agency responsible for the development and/or endorsement of the guidelines clearly identified? 95.2
2 Was funding or other support received for developing the guidelines? 38.1
3 If funding or other support was received, is there evidence that the potential biases of the funding body(ies) were taken into account? 14.3
4 Is there a description of the individuals (e.g. professionals, interest groups – including patients) who were involved in the guidelines development group? 85.7
5 If so, did the group contain representatives of all key disciplines? 23.8
6 Is there a description of the sources of information used to select the evidence on which the recommendations are based? 5.0
7 If so, are the sources of information adequate? 5.0
8 Is there a description of the method(s) used to interpret and assess the strength of the evidence? 38.1
9 If so, is(are) the method(s) for rating the evidence satisfactory? 23.5
10 Is there a description of the methods used to formulate the recommendations? 28.5
11 If so, are the methods satisfactory? 9.6
12 Is there an indication of how the views of interested parties not on the panel (or the consensus conference participants) were taken into account? 19.6
13 Is there an explicit link between the major recommendations and the level of supporting evidence? 28.5
14 Did the guidelines receive an independent external review prior to their publication/release? 28.6
15 If so, is explicit information given about methods and how comments were addressed? 0
16 Were the guidelines piloted? 0
17 If the guidelines were piloted, is explicit information given about the methods used and the results adopted? 0
18 Is there a mention of a date for reviewing or updating the guideline? 19.1
19 Is the body responsible for the reviewing and updating clearly identified? 19.0
20 Overall, have the potential biases of guideline development been adequately dealt with, i.e. have they attempted to minimize the introduction of bias adequately? 14.3
Items included in Dimension 2: Context and Content
21 Are the reasons for developing the guidelines clearly stated? 90.5
22 Are the objectives of the guidelines clearly defined? 61.9
23 Is there a satisfactory description of the patients to which the guidelines are meant to apply? 81.0
24 Is there a description of the circumstances (clinical or non-clinical) in which exceptions might be made in using the guidelines? 28.5
25 Is there an explicit statement of how patient preferences should be taken into account in applying the guidelines? 14.3
26 Do the guidelines describe the condition to be detected, treated, or prevented in unambiguous terms? 95.3
27 Are there different possible options for management of the condition clearly stated in the guidelines? 90.4
28 Are the recommendations clearly presented? 85.7
29 Is there an adequate description of the health benefits that are likely to be gained from the recommended management? 76.2
30 Is there an adequate description of the potential harms or risks that may occur as a result of the recommended management? 61.9
31 Is there an estimate of the costs or expenditures likely to incur from the recommended management? 33.4
32 Are the recommendations supported by the estimated benefits, harms and costs of the intervention? 9.6
Items included in Dimension 3: Application
33 Does the guideline document suggest possible methods for dissemination and implementation? 9.6
34 Does the guideline document specify criteria for monitoring adherence to the guidelines? 9.6
35 Does the guideline document identify clear standards or targets for adherence to the guidelines? 4.8
36 Does the guideline document define measurable outcomes (e.g. health, process, economic, outcomes) that can be monitored? 0
37 Does the guideline document identify key elements which need to be considered by local guideline groups? 0
  1. *Items are presented in the same order as they appear in the appraisal instrument