Cargando…

Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist

BACKGROUND: Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and qualit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tokalić, Ružica, Viđak, Marin, Buljan, Ivan, Marušić, Ana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206632/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4
_version_ 1783366385914609664
author Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Ana
author_facet Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Ana
author_sort Tokalić, Ružica
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs. METHODS: The national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014–2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF(10)) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs. RESULTS: Overall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0–15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0–17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF(10) = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF(10) = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF(10) = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF(10) = 16.90), primary intended users (BF(10) = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF(10) = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Important methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6206632
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62066322018-10-31 Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist Tokalić, Ružica Viđak, Marin Buljan, Ivan Marušić, Ana Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs. METHODS: The national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014–2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF(10)) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs. RESULTS: Overall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0–15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0–17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF(10) = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF(10) = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF(10) = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF(10) = 16.90), primary intended users (BF(10) = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF(10) = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Important methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6206632/ /pubmed/30373610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis 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. 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 Research
Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Ana
Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title_full Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title_fullStr Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title_full_unstemmed Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title_short Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
title_sort reporting quality of european and croatian health practice guidelines according to the right reporting checklist
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206632/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4
work_keys_str_mv AT tokalicruzica reportingqualityofeuropeanandcroatianhealthpracticeguidelinesaccordingtotherightreportingchecklist
AT viđakmarin reportingqualityofeuropeanandcroatianhealthpracticeguidelinesaccordingtotherightreportingchecklist
AT buljanivan reportingqualityofeuropeanandcroatianhealthpracticeguidelinesaccordingtotherightreportingchecklist
AT marusicana reportingqualityofeuropeanandcroatianhealthpracticeguidelinesaccordingtotherightreportingchecklist