Grimmer Karen, Machingaidze Shingai, Dizon Janine, Kredo Tamara, Louw Quinette, Young Taryn
International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE), University of South Australia, City East Campus, P4-18 North Terrace, Adelaide, 5000, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa.
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Apr 27;9:244. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2053-z.
Critically appraising the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is an essential element of evidence implementation. Critical appraisal considers the quality of CPG construction and reporting processes, and the credibility of the body of evidence underpinning recommendations. To date, the focus on CPG critical appraisal has come from researchers and evaluators, using complex appraisal instruments. Rapid critical appraisal is a relatively new approach for CPGs, which targets busy end-users such as service managers and clinicians. This paper compares the findings of two critical appraisal instruments: a rapid instrument (iCAHE) and a complex instrument (AGREE II). They were applied independently to 16 purposively-sampled, heterogeneous South African CPGs, written for eleven primary health care conditions/health areas. Overall scores, and scores in the two instruments' common domains Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour of Development, Clarity), were compared using Pearson r correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients. CPGs with differences of 10 % or greater between scores were identified and reasons sought for such differences. The time taken to apply the instruments was recorded.
Both instruments identified the generally poor quality of the included CPGs, particularly in Rigour of Development. Correlation and agreement between instrument scores was moderate, and there were no overall significant score differences. Large differences in scores for some CPGs could be explained by differences in instrument construction and focus, and CPG construction. The iCAHE instrument was demonstrably quicker to use than the AGREE II instrument.
Either instrument could be used with confidence to assess the quality of CPGs. The choice of appraisal instrument depends on the needs and time of end-users. Having an alternative (rapid) critical appraisal tool will potentially encourage busy end-users to identify and use good quality CPGs to inform practice decisions.
严格评估临床实践指南(CPG)的质量是证据实施的关键要素。严格评估考虑CPG制定和报告过程的质量,以及支撑推荐意见的证据体系的可信度。迄今为止,对CPG严格评估的关注主要来自研究人员和评估人员,他们使用复杂的评估工具。快速严格评估是一种相对较新的CPG评估方法,其目标受众是忙碌的终端用户,如服务经理和临床医生。本文比较了两种严格评估工具的结果:一种快速工具(iCAHE)和一种复杂工具(AGREE II)。它们被独立应用于16份有目的地抽样的、异质性的南非CPG,这些CPG针对11种初级卫生保健状况/健康领域编写。使用Pearson相关系数和组内相关系数比较了总体得分以及两种工具共同领域(范围与目的、利益相关者参与、基础证据/制定的严谨性、清晰度)的得分。识别出得分差异达10%或更大的CPG,并探究造成此类差异的原因。记录应用这些工具所需的时间。
两种工具均发现纳入的CPG质量普遍较差,尤其是在制定的严谨性方面。工具得分之间的相关性和一致性为中等,且总体上没有显著的得分差异。某些CPG得分的巨大差异可由工具构建和重点以及CPG构建方面的差异来解释。iCAHE工具的使用明显比AGREE II工具更快。
两种工具均可放心用于评估CPG的质量。评估工具的选择取决于终端用户的需求和时间。拥有一种替代(快速)严格评估工具可能会鼓励忙碌的终端用户识别并使用高质量的CPG来为实践决策提供信息。