Chang Sung-Goo, Kim Dong-Ik, Shin Ein-Soon, Jang Ji-Eun, Yeon Ji-Yun, Lee Yoon-Seong
Department of Urology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea .
Department of Radiology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seoul, Korea .
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 May;31(5):682-7. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.5.682. Epub 2016 Mar 24.
This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers. A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide. The domain scores of the 27 guidelines were as following: the mean domain score was 82.7% (median 84.7%, ranging from 55.6% to 97.2%) for domain 1 (scope and purpose); 53.4% (median 56.9%, ranging from 11.1% to 95.8%) for domain 2 (stakeholder involvement); 63.0% (median 71.4%, ranging from 13.5% to 90.6%) for domain 3 (rigor of development); 88.9% (median 91.7%, ranging from 58.3% to 100.0%) for domain 4 (clarity of presentation); 30.1% (median 27.1%, ranging from 3.1% to 67.7%) for domain 5 (applicability); and 50.2% (median 58.3%, ranging from 0.0% to 93.8%) for domain 6 (editorial independence). Three domains including scope and purpose, rigor of development, and clarity of presentation were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score. Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score. Finally, of the 27 guidelines, 18 (66.7%) were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score for rigor of development and were categorized as high-quality guidelines.
本研究使用韩国AGREE II评分指南和基于网络的评估系统对临床实践指南（CPGs）的方法学质量进行了评估，评估由合格的评估人员进行。使用韩国评分指南，在AGREE II工具的6个领域和23个项目下，共评估了27份韩国CPGs。27份指南的领域得分如下：领域1（范围和目的）的平均领域得分为82.7%（中位数84.7%，范围为55.6%至97.2%）；领域2（利益相关者参与）为53.4%（中位数56.9%，范围为11.1%至95.8%）；领域3（制定的严谨性）为63.0%（中位数71.4%，范围为13.5%至90.6%）；领域4（表述的清晰度）为88.9%（中位数91.7%，范围为58.3%至100.0%）；领域5（适用性）为30.1%（中位数27.1%，范围为3.1%至67.7%）；领域6（编辑独立性）为50.2%（中位数58.3%，范围为0.0%至93.8%）。包括范围和目的、制定的严谨性以及表述的清晰度在内的三个领域的评分超过了领域评分量表的60%。包括利益相关者参与、适用性和编辑独立性在内的三个领域的评分低于领域评分量表的60%。最后，在27份指南中，有18份（66.7%）在制定的严谨性方面的评分超过了领域评分量表的60%，被归类为高质量指南。
