Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review
Abstract Background Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8 |
| _version_ | 1818562740816445440 |
|---|---|
| author | Mengxing Zhang Yingfeng Zhou Jie Zhong Kairong Wang Yan Ding Li Li Xiuhong Pan |
| author_facet | Mengxing Zhang Yingfeng Zhou Jie Zhong Kairong Wang Yan Ding Li Li Xiuhong Pan |
| author_sort | Mengxing Zhang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the last decade using the AGREE II instrument. Methods A systematic search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Medlive, American Diabetes Association, Canadian Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, as well as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database was conducted from inception to June 2018. The quality was assessed by four trained researchers independently, using the AGREE IIinstrument. Results A total of 13 guidelines, published from 2009 to 2018, were finally included. Among them, 11 guidelines were evidence-based guidelines, and 2 were expert consensus. Scores for each of the six AGREE II domains(Median ± IQR) were 94 ± 11, 89 ± 53, 58 ± 37, 100 ± 6, 79 ± 48, 100 ± 71 and 67% ± 42%, and guidelines based on expert consensus generally scored lower than evidence-based guidelines (Z = -2.201, p = 0.028). Overall score of 10 guidelines were 5 points and above, and four guidelines were 7 points. Among six domains, two domains: Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation, had high scores; however, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence received lower scores. Conclusions In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. However, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating timely is needed. In some regions, more attention for guideline adaptation is recommended. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T01:07:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c6c71220eee443d2ae457706f900e828 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2393 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T01:07:43Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth |
| spelling | doaj.art-c6c71220eee443d2ae457706f900e8282022-12-21T23:22:54ZengBMCBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth1471-23932019-12-011911910.1186/s12884-019-2597-8Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic reviewMengxing Zhang0Yingfeng Zhou1Jie Zhong2Kairong Wang3Yan Ding4Li Li5Xiuhong Pan6JBI Evidence Based Nursing Cooperation Center, School of Nursing, Fudan UniversityJBI Evidence Based Nursing Cooperation Center, School of Nursing, Fudan UniversityJBI Evidence Based Nursing Cooperation Center, School of Nursing, Fudan UniversityJBI Evidence Based Nursing Cooperation Center, School of Nursing, Fudan UniversityObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan UniversityObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan UniversityShanghai Pudong HospitalAbstract Background Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the last decade using the AGREE II instrument. Methods A systematic search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Medlive, American Diabetes Association, Canadian Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, as well as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database was conducted from inception to June 2018. The quality was assessed by four trained researchers independently, using the AGREE IIinstrument. Results A total of 13 guidelines, published from 2009 to 2018, were finally included. Among them, 11 guidelines were evidence-based guidelines, and 2 were expert consensus. Scores for each of the six AGREE II domains(Median ± IQR) were 94 ± 11, 89 ± 53, 58 ± 37, 100 ± 6, 79 ± 48, 100 ± 71 and 67% ± 42%, and guidelines based on expert consensus generally scored lower than evidence-based guidelines (Z = -2.201, p = 0.028). Overall score of 10 guidelines were 5 points and above, and four guidelines were 7 points. Among six domains, two domains: Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation, had high scores; however, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence received lower scores. Conclusions In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. However, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating timely is needed. In some regions, more attention for guideline adaptation is recommended.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)AGREE II |
| spellingShingle | Mengxing Zhang Yingfeng Zhou Jie Zhong Kairong Wang Yan Ding Li Li Xiuhong Pan Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) AGREE II |
| title | Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review |
| title_full | Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review |
| title_short | Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review |
| title_sort | quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with agree ii a systematic review |
| topic | Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) AGREE II |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2597-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mengxingzhang qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT yingfengzhou qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT jiezhong qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT kairongwang qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT yanding qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT lili qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview AT xiuhongpan qualityappraisalofgestationaldiabetesmellitusguidelineswithagreeiiasystematicreview |