Béatrice Fervers

AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation), which comprises 23 items and a user's manual, offers refinements of a new way to develop, report and evaluate practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: We undertook research to improve the AGREE instrument, a tool used to evaluate guidelines. We tested a new seven-point scale, evaluated the usefulness of the original items in the instrument, investigated evidence to support shorter, tailored versions of the tool, and identified areas for improvement. METHOD: We report on one component of a larger study that used a mixed design with four factors (user type, clinical topic, guideline and condition). For the analysis reported in this article, we asked participants to read a guideline and use the AGREE items to evaluate it based on a seven-point scale, to complete three outcome measures related to adoption of the guideline, and to provide feedback on the instrument's usefulness and how to improve it. RESULTS: Guideline developers gave lower-quality ratings than did clinicians or policy-makers. Five of six domains were significant predictors of participants' outcome measures (p < 0.05). All domains and items were rated as useful by stakeholders (mean scores > 4.0) with no significant differences by user type (p > 0.05). Internal consistency ranged between 0.64 and 0.89. Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory. We received feedback on how to improve the instrument. INTERPRETATION: Quality ratings of the AGREE domains were significant predictors of outcome measures associated with guideline adoption: guideline endorsements, overall intentions to use guidelines, and overall quality of guidelines. All AGREE items were assessed as useful in determining whether a participant would use a guideline. No clusters of items were found more useful by some users than others. The measurement properties of the seven-point scale were promising. These data contributed to the refinements and release of the AGREE II.

BACKGROUND: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II. METHODS: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. RESULTS: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved. INTERPRETATION: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

PURPOSE: To describe the quality of oncology guidelines developed in different countries. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument was used to assess the quality of 100 guidelines (including 32 oncology guidelines) from 13 countries. The criteria of the instrument are grouped into six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. RESULTS: Oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores on rigor of development than nononcology guidelines (42.2% v 29.4%; P =.02). In particular, systematic methods to search for evidence were more often used (P =.01); the methods for formulating the recommendations were more clearly described (P =.02); and health benefits, risks, and side effects were more often considered in formulating the recommendations (P =.03). Although the standardized scores for the other domains were not significantly different, the oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores for items measuring inclusion of all relevant professional groups (P =.05), consideration of patient views (P =.04), and presentation of different options (P =.05). Only three organizations producing oncology guidelines had standardized scores more than 60% for more than three domains. CONCLUSION: The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is modest in general, but for certain domains, oncology guidelines seem to be of better quality than others. The experience of the organization may explain higher scores for some items. Research projects and training aimed at improving the quality of guidelines should be developed. The AGREE instrument could provide a basis for defining steps in a shared development approach to produce high-quality CPGs.