Country	Methods used	Evidence criteria	Category of evidence*	Strengths and limitations	Methods for reaching consensus	Consequences of the recommendations	Link between evidence and recommendations	Peer review?	Update of the guidelines?
Germany	Systematic methods used, details provided in the guideline	Classified according to Oxford Centre of Evidence-based Medicine criteria	1a	Strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described	Formal consensus technique	The guideline includes health benefits, side effects and risks formulating the recommendations	There is an clear link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence	External review	Due in 2020.
Denmark	Systematic methods used, details provided in the guideline	NS	The guidelines are based on literature, and articles based on the consensus of leading professionals in the field of audiology (evidence level IV)	NS	Informal consensus. All recommendations are based on the ICF model	NS	Each recommendation is provided with an argument based on relevant literature	Not peer reviewed	NS
Netherlands	Systematic methods used, details provided in the guideline	Based on AMSTAR checklist	1a, 1b, IV	The strength of the evidence is specified according to GRADE. Evidence tables describe limitations and strengths of the included studies	Recommendations were evidence based and the importance the workgroup gave to them conforms to GRADE	Recommendations were made considering the scientific value, preferences of the patient, costs, and availability of the organization	There is a clear link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence	External review	Update due in 2020 or sooner if new compelling evidence warrants earlier consideration
USA	Systematic methods used, details provided in the guideline	Based on criteria from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine	American Academy of Pediatrics Categories of evidence (A, B, C, D, and X) updated to be in accordance with Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine	Strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described	This guideline was developed using an explicit and transparent a priori protocol for creating actionable statements based on supporting evidence and the associated balance of benefit and harm	The benefits and harms of the recommendations have been considered for each recommendation.	There is an clear link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence	External review	Update due in 2018/9 or sooner if new compelling evidence warrants earlier consideration
Sweden	No method reported	No evidence criteria	No evidence provided	None provided.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

^*Unless stated, the level of evidence refers to/uses the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria (GRADE system consists of 4 grades of degree of trust in conclusions of the literature: high, moderate, low, and very low) NS, not specified; ENT, Ear Nose Throat; GP, General Practitioner.