Guidelines rarely used GRADE and applied methods inconsistently: A methodological study of Australian guidelines

被引:12
作者
Barker, Timothy Hugh [1 ,2 ]
Dias, Mafalda [2 ,3 ]
Stern, Cindy [1 ,2 ]
Porritt, Kylie [1 ,2 ]
Wiechula, Rick [2 ,4 ,11 ]
Aromataris, Edoardo [1 ,2 ]
Brennan, Sue [5 ,6 ]
Schuncmann, Holger J. [7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ]
Munn, Zachary [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Adelaide GRADE Ctr, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[3] Univ South Australia, Qual Use Med & Pharm Res Ctr, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[4] Univ Adelaide, Adelaide Nursing Sch, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[5] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[6] Melbourne GRADE Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada Ctr, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[8] McMaster GRADE Ctr, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[9] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[10] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[11] Ctr Evidence based Practice South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Australia; Clinical; GRADE; Guidelines; NHMRC; CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINES; HEALTH-CARE; QUALITY; STRENGTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.017
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is accepted methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence included in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. The GRADE approach is endorsed globally, in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council advocated for the use of the GRADE approach in 2011. The purpose of this methodological review was to assess how GRADE has been adopted for Australian practice guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This methodological review searched of the National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Practice Guidelines Portal from 2011 to 2018, in an effort to retrieve all practice guidelines available via this medium. Results: 240 guidelines were retrieved authored by 51 different organizations. 15 guidelines followed GRADE methodology. Application of GRADE methods varied between guidelines, some misreported and altered aspects of the GRADE process. Guidelines that closely adhered to the guidance from the GRADE Working Group scored higher in domain 3 (rigor of development) of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool, indicating a positive linear relationship between GRADE adherence and rigor of development scores. Conclusion: The results of our project suggest that the use of GRADE in Australian guidelines is increasing, however, strategies to increase uptake and reporting within the guideline community need to be explored. Crown Copyright (c) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:125 / 134
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] A Systematic Review of Recent Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of Hypertension
    Al-Ansary, Lubna A.
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Adi, Yaser
    Bawazeer, Ghada
    Perrier, Laure
    Al-Ghonaim, Mohammed
    AlYousefi, Nada
    Tashkandi, Mariam
    Straus, Sharon E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (01):
  • [2] GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    Moberg, Jenny
    Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
    Akl, Elie A.
    Davoli, Marina
    Treweek, Shaun
    Mustafa, Reem A.
    Rada, Gabriel
    Rosenbaum, Sarah
    Morelli, Angela
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 353
  • [3] The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Irfan, Affan
    Sola, Ivan
    Gich, Ignasi
    Delgado-Noguera, Mario
    Rigau, David
    Tort, Sera
    Bonfill, Xavier
    Burgers, Jako
    Schunemann, Holger
    [J]. QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2010, 19 (06): : e58
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2017, AUSTR CLIN PRACTICE
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2014, 2014 ANN REP
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2013, Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation II
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2010, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, DOI DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2014, REPORT AUSTR CLIN PR
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2011, PROCEDURES REQUIREME
  • [10] [Anonymous], 2016, REPORTING AUSTR CLIN