Table 5.
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II reporting grid summary from four independent assessors
| AGREE II Item | Reporting Location | Domain Score (%)b |
|---|---|---|
| Domain 1. Scope and Purpose | 100 | |
| 1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23] and PROSPERO Registrations |
|
| 3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| Domain 2. Stakeholder Involvement | 99 | |
| 4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Focus groups and key informant interviews [33] |
|
| 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| Domain 3. Rigour of Development | 95 | |
| 7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. | • Guideline Development Report • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23, 60] |
|
| 8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. | • Guideline Development Report • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23, 60] |
|
| 9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23, 60] |
|
| 10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 11. The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23, 47, 49, 60] |
|
| 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. | • Guideline Development Report | |
| 13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Focus groups and key informant interviews [33] |
|
| 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| Domain 4. Clarity of Presentation | 99 | |
| 15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented.a | • Not applicable | |
| 17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| Domain 5. Applicability | 89 | |
| 18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • Focus groups and key informant interviews [33] |
|
| 19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript • CSEP website (www.csep.ca/guidelines) |
|
| 20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 21. The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| Domain 6. Editorial Independence | 89 | |
| 22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline. | • Guideline Development Report • This manuscript |
|
| 23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed. | • This manuscript • Systematic reviews [18, 21–23] |
|
aItem 16 was rated as “not applicable” by one reviewer and assessments from the other reviewers were included in the scaled Domain 4 score
bFour independent reviewers applied the AGREE II assessment; the Domain Scores (%) were calculated by summing all the scores of the individual items in a domain and by scaling the total as a percentage of the maximum possible score for that domain (as per the AGREE II Instrument, available at www.agreetrust.org). The “Reporting Location” is not a comprehensive summary of all places where the information in each item can be found. The Guideline Development Report is available at www.csep.ca/guidelines