Cargando…

Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grimmer, Karen, Dizon, Janine Margarita, Milanese, Steve, King, Ellena, Beaton, Kate, Thorpe, Olivia, Lizarondo, Lucylynn, Luker, Julie, Machotka, Zuzana, Kumar, Saravana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-63
_version_ 1782317825159856128
author Grimmer, Karen
Dizon, Janine Margarita
Milanese, Steve
King, Ellena
Beaton, Kate
Thorpe, Olivia
Lizarondo, Lucylynn
Luker, Julie
Machotka, Zuzana
Kumar, Saravana
author_facet Grimmer, Karen
Dizon, Janine Margarita
Milanese, Steve
King, Ellena
Beaton, Kate
Thorpe, Olivia
Lizarondo, Lucylynn
Luker, Julie
Machotka, Zuzana
Kumar, Saravana
author_sort Grimmer, Karen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1–7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users. METHODS: Content and construct validity, inter-tester reliability and clinical utility were tested by comparing the new iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist with the AGREE II instrument. Firstly the questions and domains in both instruments were compared. Six randomly-selected guidelines on a similar theme were then assessed by three independent testers with different experience in guideline quality assessment, using both instruments. Per guideline, weighted domain and total AGREE II scores were calculated, using the scoring rubric for three testers. Total iCAHE scores were calculated per guideline, per tester. The linear relationship between iCAHE and AGREE II scores was assessed using Pearson r correlation coefficients. Score differences between testers were assessed for the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist. RESULTS: There were congruent questions in each instrument in four domains (Scope & Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour, Clarity). The iCAHE and AGREE II scores were moderate to strongly correlated for the six guidelines. There was generally good agreement between testers for iCAHE scores, irrespective of their experience. The iCAHE instrument was preferred by all testers, and took significantly less time to administer than the AGREE II instrument. However, the use of only three testers and six guidelines compromised study power, rendering this research as pilot investigations of the psychometric properties of the iCAHE instrument. CONCLUSION: The iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist has promising psychometric properties and clinical utility.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4033487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40334872014-05-27 Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool Grimmer, Karen Dizon, Janine Margarita Milanese, Steve King, Ellena Beaton, Kate Thorpe, Olivia Lizarondo, Lucylynn Luker, Julie Machotka, Zuzana Kumar, Saravana BMC Med Res Methodol Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Evaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1–7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users. METHODS: Content and construct validity, inter-tester reliability and clinical utility were tested by comparing the new iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist with the AGREE II instrument. Firstly the questions and domains in both instruments were compared. Six randomly-selected guidelines on a similar theme were then assessed by three independent testers with different experience in guideline quality assessment, using both instruments. Per guideline, weighted domain and total AGREE II scores were calculated, using the scoring rubric for three testers. Total iCAHE scores were calculated per guideline, per tester. The linear relationship between iCAHE and AGREE II scores was assessed using Pearson r correlation coefficients. Score differences between testers were assessed for the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist. RESULTS: There were congruent questions in each instrument in four domains (Scope & Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour, Clarity). The iCAHE and AGREE II scores were moderate to strongly correlated for the six guidelines. There was generally good agreement between testers for iCAHE scores, irrespective of their experience. The iCAHE instrument was preferred by all testers, and took significantly less time to administer than the AGREE II instrument. However, the use of only three testers and six guidelines compromised study power, rendering this research as pilot investigations of the psychometric properties of the iCAHE instrument. CONCLUSION: The iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist has promising psychometric properties and clinical utility. BioMed Central 2014-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4033487/ /pubmed/24885893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-63 Text en Copyright © 2014 Grimmer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Grimmer, Karen
Dizon, Janine Margarita
Milanese, Steve
King, Ellena
Beaton, Kate
Thorpe, Olivia
Lizarondo, Lucylynn
Luker, Julie
Machotka, Zuzana
Kumar, Saravana
Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title_full Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title_fullStr Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title_full_unstemmed Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title_short Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
title_sort efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-63
work_keys_str_mv AT grimmerkaren efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT dizonjaninemargarita efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT milanesesteve efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT kingellena efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT beatonkate efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT thorpeolivia efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT lizarondolucylynn efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT lukerjulie efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT machotkazuzana efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool
AT kumarsaravana efficientclinicalevaluationofguidelinequalitydevelopmentandtestingofanewtool