Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 16 (6), 439-451

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hypertension: Evaluation of Quality Using the AGREE II Instrument

Affiliations

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hypertension: Evaluation of Quality Using the AGREE II Instrument

Xiaowei Zhang et al. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs.

Abstract

Introduction: Hypertension is an important public health challenge. The purpose of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is to provide explicit recommendations for clinical practice, reduce inadequate variations, optimize results, minimize risks, and promote cost-effective practice. Therefore, a highly methodological quality development process for CPGs is more likely to yield a CPG that contains relevant and appropriate recommendations.

Method: To assess the quality of CPGs for the prevention and treatment of hypertension, a systematic search was performed using the following literature databases: PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Web of Science, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan fang Data, VIP, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). Then the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of the CPGs.

Results: Forty-one CPGs were identified (ten CPGs in Chinese and 31 CPGs in English). The results for the overall recommendation were as follows: strongly recommended (15 %), recommended (29 %), weakly recommended (51 %), and not recommended (5 %). The scores for all domains (mean ± standard deviations) were "scope and purpose" (58.65 ± 12.67 %), "stakeholder involvement" (48.07 ± 11.41 %), "rigor of development" (27.31 ± 12.29 %), "clarity of presentation" (53.89 ± 11.09 %), "applicability" (40.10 ± 13.33 %), and "editorial independence" (38.75 ± 16.43 %). All differences were statistically insignificant for all domains (P > 0.05) according to publication time. CPGs using an evidence-based (EB) method were of a higher quality than non-EBs for all domains, but the differences were significant for the following domains: "Scope and Purpose," "Rigor of Development," "Applicability," and "Editorial Independence" (P < 0.05). The scores for the CPGs developed based on associations and society appeared slightly higher than those developed by individuals. However, the differences were insignificant for all domains (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: A more systematic approach for the development and report of these guidelines is recommended. The AGREE II instrument can be a useful tool to improve the quality of guidelines.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 4 PubMed Central articles

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback