Factors Associated With High-Quality Guidelines for the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Diseases in Primary Care
Authors:
- Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa MolinoCMCaroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Molino
- Nathalia Celini Leite-SantosNLNathalia Celini Leite-Santos
- Airton Tetelbom SteinASAirton Tetelbom Stein
- Daniela Oliveira de MeloDMDaniela Oliveira de Melo
- for the Chronic Diseases and Informed Decisions (CHRONIDE) GroupFGfor the Chronic Diseases and Informed Decisions (CHRONIDE) Group
- 1 April 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA Internal Medicine
- Vol. 179 (4) , 553-560
Abstract
Importance As the rate of publication of new and sometimes conflicting medical research increases, clinicians rely heavily on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform practice. However, CPGs are of widely variable quality, and there are no existing objective measures to rate the quality of CPGs. Objective To systematically assess 421 CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II (AGREE-II) tool and elucidate the factors associated with quality of CPGs. Evidence Review MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 12 websites for CPGs were searched for CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care published between January 1, 2011, and August 30, 2017. The assessment of the quality of CPGs was performed by 3 appraisers using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II instrument. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with quality of CPGs. Findings Of the 421 CPGs reviewed, 23.5% (99) were classified as high quality. Among included guidelines, clarity of presentation (70%) and scope and purpose (61%) had the highest median AGREE-II scores. The domains with the lowest median scores were applicability (22%) and rigor of development (33%). Factors associated with high-quality CPGs included having more than 20 authors (odds ratio, 9.08; 95% CI, 3.35-24.62), development at governmental institutions (odds ratio, 10.38; 95% CI, 2.72-39.60), and reporting funding (odds ratio, 10.34; 95% CI, 4.77-22.39). Year of publication, region, guideline version, and scope were not associated with quality among included CPGs. Conclusions and Relevance Primary care professionals and policymakers should be aware that CPGs in primary care are of widely variable quality, with less than 25% of included CPGs rated as high quality. High-quality CPGs were associated with a higher number of authors, governmental institutions, and the report of funding. Region of origin was not associated with quality of CPGs, which suggests that the improvement of the quality of CPGs should be an international concern.Keywords
This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Systematic Review of Recent Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of HypertensionPLOS ONE, 2013
- Systematic review of the methodological quality of clinical guideline development for the management of chronic disease in EuropeHealth Policy, 2012
- Anticoagulation management in clinical practice: Preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillationHeart & Lung, 2012
- AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health careCanadian Medical Association Journal, 2010
- Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support applicationCanadian Medical Association Journal, 2010
- Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvementCanadian Medical Association Journal, 2010
- Conflict between Guideline Methodologic Quality and Recommendation Validity: A Potential Problem for PractitionersClinical Chemistry, 2006
- Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncologyInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2005
- CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-QUALITY GUIDELINESInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2003
- Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelinesBMJ, 1999