Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality

Irina Bancos, Theresa Cheng, Larry J. Prokop, Victor Manuel Montori, Mohammad H Murad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of endocrine guidelines developed in North America. Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all endocrine clinical practice guidelines developed in North America and published between January 1, 2007 and January 13, 2010. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Results: One hundred eligible endocrine guidelines had high scores in the scope-and-purpose (mean pooled standardized score [MPSD] of 82 ± 14) and clarity domains (MPSD = 64 ± 17) and low scores in the stakeholder-involvement (MPSD of 36 ± 12) and editorial independence domains (MPSD = 36 ± 36). Only 29% of guidelines scored above 60% for more than three domains. Rigor-of-development domain score was significantly higher in guidelines using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, nondiabetes guidelines, and in published in-print vs. online publications. Conclusions: The quality of endocrine guidelines published in 2007-2009 is moderate and can be improved by (1) using methodologically sound development frameworks, (2) increasing stakeholder involvement, and (3) paying more attention to resource implications of guideline implementation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)520-525
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume65
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

Fingerprint

North America
Practice Guidelines
Guidelines
Publications

Keywords

  • AGREE instrument
  • Clinical practice
  • Endocrine guideline
  • GRADE
  • Quality
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality. / Bancos, Irina; Cheng, Theresa; Prokop, Larry J.; Montori, Victor Manuel; Murad, Mohammad H.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 65, No. 5, 05.2012, p. 520-525.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{91890733f3a54f3589c4d9f6d5f8eaae,
title = "Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the quality of endocrine guidelines developed in North America. Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all endocrine clinical practice guidelines developed in North America and published between January 1, 2007 and January 13, 2010. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Results: One hundred eligible endocrine guidelines had high scores in the scope-and-purpose (mean pooled standardized score [MPSD] of 82 ± 14) and clarity domains (MPSD = 64 ± 17) and low scores in the stakeholder-involvement (MPSD of 36 ± 12) and editorial independence domains (MPSD = 36 ± 36). Only 29{\%} of guidelines scored above 60{\%} for more than three domains. Rigor-of-development domain score was significantly higher in guidelines using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, nondiabetes guidelines, and in published in-print vs. online publications. Conclusions: The quality of endocrine guidelines published in 2007-2009 is moderate and can be improved by (1) using methodologically sound development frameworks, (2) increasing stakeholder involvement, and (3) paying more attention to resource implications of guideline implementation.",
keywords = "AGREE instrument, Clinical practice, Endocrine guideline, GRADE, Quality, Systematic review",
author = "Irina Bancos and Theresa Cheng and Prokop, {Larry J.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Murad, {Mohammad H}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "520--525",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality

AU - Bancos, Irina

AU - Cheng, Theresa

AU - Prokop, Larry J.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Objective: To assess the quality of endocrine guidelines developed in North America. Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all endocrine clinical practice guidelines developed in North America and published between January 1, 2007 and January 13, 2010. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Results: One hundred eligible endocrine guidelines had high scores in the scope-and-purpose (mean pooled standardized score [MPSD] of 82 ± 14) and clarity domains (MPSD = 64 ± 17) and low scores in the stakeholder-involvement (MPSD of 36 ± 12) and editorial independence domains (MPSD = 36 ± 36). Only 29% of guidelines scored above 60% for more than three domains. Rigor-of-development domain score was significantly higher in guidelines using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, nondiabetes guidelines, and in published in-print vs. online publications. Conclusions: The quality of endocrine guidelines published in 2007-2009 is moderate and can be improved by (1) using methodologically sound development frameworks, (2) increasing stakeholder involvement, and (3) paying more attention to resource implications of guideline implementation.

AB - Objective: To assess the quality of endocrine guidelines developed in North America. Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all endocrine clinical practice guidelines developed in North America and published between January 1, 2007 and January 13, 2010. Two independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Results: One hundred eligible endocrine guidelines had high scores in the scope-and-purpose (mean pooled standardized score [MPSD] of 82 ± 14) and clarity domains (MPSD = 64 ± 17) and low scores in the stakeholder-involvement (MPSD of 36 ± 12) and editorial independence domains (MPSD = 36 ± 36). Only 29% of guidelines scored above 60% for more than three domains. Rigor-of-development domain score was significantly higher in guidelines using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, nondiabetes guidelines, and in published in-print vs. online publications. Conclusions: The quality of endocrine guidelines published in 2007-2009 is moderate and can be improved by (1) using methodologically sound development frameworks, (2) increasing stakeholder involvement, and (3) paying more attention to resource implications of guideline implementation.

KW - AGREE instrument

KW - Clinical practice

KW - Endocrine guideline

KW - GRADE

KW - Quality

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861139625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861139625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.014

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 22280992

AN - SCOPUS:84861139625

VL - 65

SP - 520

EP - 525

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 5

ER -