Table 3.
Quality assessment of the included documents
| Quality Assessment Check | AU, 2022 [8] | AU, 2021 [9] | AU, 2013 [10] | CH, 2020 [11] | CH, 2016 [12] | CH, 2016 [13] | CH, 2015 [14] | CZ, 2020 [15] | DE, 2021 [16] | ES, 2018 [17] | NO, 2020 [18] | UK, 2015 [19] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Scope and Purpose | ||||||||||||
| 1.The overall objective(s) of the guideline [document] is (are) specifically described. | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| 2.The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
3.The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline [document] is meant to apply is specifically described. |
7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Domain 2: Stakeholder Involvement | ||||||||||||
|
4.The guideline [document] development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups. |
7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
|
5.The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought. |
7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| 6.The target users of the guideline [document] are clearly defined. | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Domain 3: Rigour of Development | ||||||||||||
| 7.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 8.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 9.The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 10.The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
11.The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. |
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. |
4 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 |
| 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 14.A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation | ||||||||||||
| 15.The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
16.The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented. |
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 17.Key recommendations are easily identifiable. | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Domain 5: Applicability | ||||||||||||
| 18.The guideline [document] describes facilitators and barriers to its application. | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
|
19.The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. |
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
20.The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered. |
5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| 21.The guideline [document] presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria. | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Domain 6: Editorial Independence | ||||||||||||
| 22.The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline. | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
23.Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed. |
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
Overall quality of this guideline/document (1 – lowest possible quality, 7 – highest possible quality) |
60 of 77 (78%) | 65 of 77 (84%) | 56 of 77 (73%) | 54 of 77 (70%) | 63 of 77 (82%) | 48 of 77 (62%) | 53 of 77 (69%) | 58 of 77 (75%) | 64 of 77 (83%) | 63 of 77 (82%) | 73 of 77 (95%) | 66 of 77 (86%) |
Rating Scale: 1 – Strongly Disagree; 7 – Strongly Agree
Abbreviations: AU – Australia; CH – Switzerland; CZ – Czechia; DE – Germany; ES – Spain; NA – not applicable;
NO – Norway; NR – not reported; UK – United Kingdom