Cargando…
A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative
OBJECTIVES: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guide...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28432574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6 |
_version_ | 1783237731860611072 |
---|---|
author | Messina, Carmelo Bignotti, Bianca Bazzocchi, Alberto Phan, Catherine M. Tagliafico, Alberto Guglielmi, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Sconfienza, Luca Maria |
author_facet | Messina, Carmelo Bignotti, Bianca Bazzocchi, Alberto Phan, Catherine M. Tagliafico, Alberto Guglielmi, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Sconfienza, Luca Maria |
author_sort | Messina, Carmelo |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults. METHODS: Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores. RESULTS: Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines. MAIN MESSAGES: • Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%). • Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%). • Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%). • Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5438319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54383192017-06-06 A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative Messina, Carmelo Bignotti, Bianca Bazzocchi, Alberto Phan, Catherine M. Tagliafico, Alberto Guglielmi, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Sconfienza, Luca Maria Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults. METHODS: Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores. RESULTS: Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines. MAIN MESSAGES: • Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%). • Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%). • Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%). • Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5438319/ /pubmed/28432574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Messina, Carmelo Bignotti, Bianca Bazzocchi, Alberto Phan, Catherine M. Tagliafico, Alberto Guglielmi, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Sconfienza, Luca Maria A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title | A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title_full | A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title_fullStr | A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title_full_unstemmed | A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title_short | A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative |
title_sort | critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the agree ii tool: an euroaim initiative |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28432574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT messinacarmelo acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT bignottibianca acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT bazzocchialberto acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT phancatherinem acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT tagliaficoalberto acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT guglielmigiuseppe acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT sardanellifrancesco acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT sconfienzalucamaria acriticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT messinacarmelo criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT bignottibianca criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT bazzocchialberto criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT phancatherinem criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT tagliaficoalberto criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT guglielmigiuseppe criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT sardanellifrancesco criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative AT sconfienzalucamaria criticalappraisalofthequalityofadultdualenergyxrayabsorptiometryguidelinesinosteoporosisusingtheagreeiitoolaneuroaiminitiative |