TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality of Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines
T2 - An Overview Study of AGREE II Appraisals
AU - Dijkers, Marcel P.
AU - Ward, Irene
AU - Annaswamy, Thiru
AU - Dedrick, Devin
AU - Feldpausch, Jennie
AU - Moul, Andrew
AU - Hoffecker, Lilian
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR; grant no. 90DPKT0001 ). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL , HHS , and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government . M.D. and D.D. were supported by the American Institutes for Research's Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, which is supported by NIDILRR . This research was suggested by participants in the Center’s Community of Practice on Evidence for Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
Funding Information:
Supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR; grant no. 90DPKT0001). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. M.D. and D.D. were supported by the American Institutes for Research's Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, which is supported by NIDILRR. This research was suggested by participants in the Center's Community of Practice on Evidence for Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - Objective: To evaluate the quality of rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), specifically with respect to their applicability. Data Sources: The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for papers published between 2017 and 2019 that applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) CPG quality assessment tool to rehabilitation CPGs. Study Selection: Deduplicated abstracts (N=449) were independently screened by 2 authors, resulting in 47 articles. Independent screening of 47 full texts by 2 authors resulted in a final selection of 40 papers appraising 544 CPGs. Data Extraction: Data were extracted by 1 author using a pretested Excel form and were checked by a second author. Key data on the review papers included: purpose, methods used for finding and appraising CPGs, and observations and conclusions on CPG quality, specifically applicability. Key data on each CPG included the 6 AGREE II domain scores or 23 item scores, as well as 2 global evaluations. Data Synthesis: The mean AGREE II domain scores for the 544 CPGs (all on a 0-100 scale) were: scope and purpose (72), stakeholder involvement (53), rigor of development (56), clarity of presentation (71), applicability (34), and editorial independence (50). Only 36% of CPGs were recommended without modification. The 40 review authors generally stated that all or most of the CPGs they appraised were poor or mediocre, especially with respect to applicability. They only infrequently pointed out what information, going beyond that specified in AGREE II, would enhance applicability. Conclusions: CPGs in principle are an ideal means to move knowledge obtained from clinical research into practice. Our review of reviews of rehabilitation CPGs shows that they commonly have deficits, especially in terms of applicability. Much work needs to be done by guideline developers to make it easier for the average rehabilitation organization and clinician to implement CPGs in daily practice.
AB - Objective: To evaluate the quality of rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), specifically with respect to their applicability. Data Sources: The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for papers published between 2017 and 2019 that applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) CPG quality assessment tool to rehabilitation CPGs. Study Selection: Deduplicated abstracts (N=449) were independently screened by 2 authors, resulting in 47 articles. Independent screening of 47 full texts by 2 authors resulted in a final selection of 40 papers appraising 544 CPGs. Data Extraction: Data were extracted by 1 author using a pretested Excel form and were checked by a second author. Key data on the review papers included: purpose, methods used for finding and appraising CPGs, and observations and conclusions on CPG quality, specifically applicability. Key data on each CPG included the 6 AGREE II domain scores or 23 item scores, as well as 2 global evaluations. Data Synthesis: The mean AGREE II domain scores for the 544 CPGs (all on a 0-100 scale) were: scope and purpose (72), stakeholder involvement (53), rigor of development (56), clarity of presentation (71), applicability (34), and editorial independence (50). Only 36% of CPGs were recommended without modification. The 40 review authors generally stated that all or most of the CPGs they appraised were poor or mediocre, especially with respect to applicability. They only infrequently pointed out what information, going beyond that specified in AGREE II, would enhance applicability. Conclusions: CPGs in principle are an ideal means to move knowledge obtained from clinical research into practice. Our review of reviews of rehabilitation CPGs shows that they commonly have deficits, especially in terms of applicability. Much work needs to be done by guideline developers to make it easier for the average rehabilitation organization and clinician to implement CPGs in daily practice.
KW - Guideline
KW - Guidelines as topic
KW - Practice guideline
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Review
KW - Review literature as topic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086870937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85086870937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.022
DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.022
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32437691
AN - SCOPUS:85086870937
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 101
SP - 1643
EP - 1655
JO - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
JF - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
IS - 9
ER -