loading page

Quality Guidelines for Corona Virus Disease 2019 with AGREE II Instrument.
  • +8
  • Yao Song,
  • Qiurui Liu,
  • Jianjun Ren,
  • Wenjie Yang,
  • Ke Qiu,
  • Jianqing Qiu,
  • Wendu Pang,
  • Yijun Dong,
  • Deying Kang,
  • Yu Zhao,
  • Wei Zhang
Yao Song
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Qiurui Liu
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Jianjun Ren
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Wenjie Yang
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Ke Qiu
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Jianqing Qiu
Sichuan University West China School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics
Author Profile
Wendu Pang
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Yijun Dong
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Deying Kang
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Yu Zhao
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile
Wei Zhang
Sichuan University West China Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Objective: Numerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been developed since its outbreak. To date, however, the methodological quality of these guidelines has not been fully evaluated. Quality evaluation of the guidelines is to facilitate the clinic practitioners in diagnosis and treatment of the COVID-19. Methods: The evaluation was conducted by searching seven databases and government organizations websites (December 2019 to March 2020). Four assessors assessed the quality of the CPGs independently with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. For domain scores (0-100%), >60% were considered of sufficient quality, and >80% of good quality. Results: Of 471 retrieved records, 20 guidelines were included. The median score for the domain of scope and purpose was 56.9% (range 40.3–90.3%) and nine guidelines scored >60%, among which three guidelines scored >80%. The median score for the stakeholder involvement domain was 7% (range 0–65.3%) and only two guidelines scored >60%. Nine guidelines scored 0% in this domain. The median score for the rigour of development domain was 0% (range 0–91.7%) and fourteen guidelines scored 0% in this domain. The median score for the clarity of presentation domain was 30.6% (range 13.9–91.7%) and six guidelines scored >60%, among which three guidelines scored >80%. The median score for the applicability domain was 0% (0–57.3%) and eleven guidelines scored 0% in this domain. The median score for the editorial independence domain was 0% (0–100%): four guidelines scored >80%. Discussions:Three guidelines were recommendable, and four were recommendable with modification in the stakeholder involvement, the rigour of development, and the applicability domains. Our results could contribute to improve development of future guidelines, and affect the reasonable selection and use of guidelines in clinical practice.

Peer review status:POSTED

24 Apr 2020Submitted to Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
29 Apr 2020Assigned to Editor
29 Apr 2020Submission Checks Completed