Table 1. Items from AGREE II (Domains 3 and 6) and additional items collected to assess Transparency of Document Development.

Criteria collected	Source
Rigour of development
Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.
The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described
The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described.
The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.	Domain 3 of AGREE II [5]
The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations.
There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.
The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.
A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.
Editorial independence
The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline.	Domain 6 of AGREE II [5]
Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed.
Additional items to assess transparency of document development
Was a systematic review performed? (yes – systematic review performed anddocumented, no – systematic review not performed or not documented)	IOM [3] JCO [10]
How was the guideline group established? (invited, not disclosed, other),	IOM [3]
Was the group privately funded? (yes, no, not disclosed)	JCO [10].
Was the group multidisciplinary? (yes, no, not disclosed)	JCO [10].
Consensus sponsor
For guidelines where a pharmaceutical product was evaluated was a specific productendorsed in the statement? (yes- name of product, no)
Name and manufacturer of product endorsed

IOM  =  Institute of medicine,

JCO  =  Journal of clinical oncology.