Table 3.

Differences in AGREE II β version scores as a function of high- and low-quality content

Domain	Item	High quality, mean score (SD)	Low quality, mean score (SD)	p value
Scope and purpose	1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described	5.67 (1.29)	3.92 (1.26)	0.001
	2. The clinical question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described	5.93 (1.71)	4.62 (1.19)	0.028
	3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described	6.47 (1.06)	4.15 (1.07)	< 0.001
Stakeholder involvement	4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups	6.77 (0.44)	4.20 (1.78)	< 0.001
	5. The patients’ views and preferences have been sought	6.00 (1.25)	4.38 (1.19)	0.002
	6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined	6.20 (0.86)	4.77 (1.79)	0.010
	7. The guideline has been piloted among end users	6.73 (0.59)	5.08 (1.26)	< 0.001
Rigour of development	8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence	6.69 (0.63)	4.60 (1.64)	< 0.001
	9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described	6.00 (0.82)	4.07 (1.67)	0.001
	10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described	5.47 (1.51)	4.92 (1.26)	0.314
	11. The health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations	4.27 (1.83)	3.85 (1.57)	0.524
	12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence	5.23 (1.74)	4.20 (1.94)	0.153
	13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication	6.20 (1.08)	4.54 (1.20)	0.001
	14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided	6.07 (1.62)	4.00 (1.35)	0.001
Clarity of presentation	15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous	5.73 (1.03)	3.92 (0.95)	< 0.001
	16. The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented	NA	NA	NA
	17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable*	5.53 (1.96)	5.57 (0.94)	0.948
	18. The guideline is supported with tools for application	6.67 (0.72)	3.62 (1.71)	< 0.001
Applicability	19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed	5.00 (1.60)	3.46 (1.56)	0.017
	20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations have been considered	4.69 (1.65)	2.87 (2.07)	0.017
	21. The guideline presents key review criteria for monitoring and/or audit purposes	6.00 (1.16)	4.20 (1.66)	0.003
Editorial independence	22. The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body	6.92 (0.28)	6.00 (1.13)	0.008
	23. Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded	6.80 (0.56)	5.46 (1.27)	0.001

Note: NA = not applicable, SD = standard deviation.

^*Participants in both groups received the same version of guideline text for assessment.