Clinical Practice Guidelines of Rehabilitation: Methodological Quality
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2020.02.003
- VernacularTitle:康复临床实践指南：方法学质量研究
- Author:
Li-li WEI
1
;
Hao-ran LI
2
;
Zi-jun WANG
3
;
Jia-jun HUANG
4
,
5
;
Qi ZHOU
6
,
7
;
Tian-xiang HUANG
4
,
5
;
Pei-yao CHEN
4
,
5
;
Xing-jie LI
1
;
Yao-long CHEN
3
;
Ke-hu YANG
3
Author Information
1. the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
2. WHO-FIC Collaborating Center in China, Beijing 100068, China
3. Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
4. the First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou
5. University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
6. Gansu Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and
7. Clinical Transformation, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
rehabilitation;
clinical practice guidelines;
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II;
guideline evaluation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2020;26(2):144-149
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II.Methods Clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were searched in databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Wanfang database, CNKI, China Biology Medicine disc and related websites from medlive.cn, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, World Health Organization, and Guidelines International Network from establishment to January 11, 2020. Two researchers reviewed literatures and assessed the methodological quality of the guidelines independently by using AGREE II; any disagreements needed to be discussed in a consensus meeting.Results A total of 84 guidelines were included in the study, with 67 foreign guidelines and 17 domestic guidelines. The average score rate for all the guidelines was 48.1%, in which 49.9% for the foreign guidelines and 40.7% for the domestic guidelines. In the six areas of AGREE II, the average score rate of the foreign guidelines was higher than that of domestic ones (|Z| > 2.034, P < 0.05), expect applicability; the average score rate of clarity and independence improved with the launch of AGREE Ⅱ ( Z > 2.130, P < 0.05). The average scores rate ranged from high to low followed as range and purpose (41.6%), clarity (39.9%), participants (24.5%), rigor (23.2%), independence (15.5%) and applicability (12.9%). Conclusion Clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation is mainly of low quality by AGREE II. Guideline developers need to work after AGREE Ⅱ standard in the future.
