Table 1.
Quality assessments of IWGDF guideline to adopt or adapt; using a customised AGREE II instrument*
| Item No. | Item description | Assessor 1 | Assessor 2 | Assessor 3 | Assessor 4 | Total score | Total score % | Quality category^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and purpose | ||||||||
| 1 | The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 25 | 89% | High |
| 2 | The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 3 | The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described. | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 3 items) | 18 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 77 | 92% | High | |
| Stakeholder involvement | ||||||||
| 4 | The guideline development group includes individuals from all relevant professional groups. | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 20 | 71% | High |
| 5 | The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 29% | Low |
| 6 | The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 23 | 82% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 3 applicable items) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 51 | 61% | Moderate | |
| Rigour of development | ||||||||
| 7 | Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| 8 | The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| 9 | The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 10 | The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 24 | 86% | High |
| 11 | The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 25 | 89% | High |
| 12 | There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 24 | 86% | High |
| 13 | The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 68% | Moderate |
| 14 | A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 22 | 79% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 8 items) | 46 | 51 | 50 | 49 | 196 | 88% | High | |
| Clarity of presentation | ||||||||
| 15 | The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 16 | The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented. | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 25 | 89% | High |
| 17 | Key recommendations are easily identifiable. | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 3 items) | 19 | 19 | 21 | 20 | 79 | 94% | High | |
| Applicability | ||||||||
| 18 | The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application. | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 68% | Moderate |
| 19 | The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. | 5 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 68% | Moderate |
| 20 | The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered. | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 57% | Moderate |
| 21 | The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria. | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 57% | Moderate |
| Domain Score (sum of 4 items) | 19 | 23 | 10 | 18 | 70 | 63% | Moderate | |
| Editorial independence | ||||||||
| 22 | The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline. | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| 23 | Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed. | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 13 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 54 | 96% | High | |
| Overall guideline assessment | ||||||||
| Rate the overall quality of this guideline | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 24 | 86% | High | |
| I would recommend this guideline for use. | Yes | Yes,with modifications | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Total Guideline Score (sum of all 23 individual items) | 128 | 139 | 128 | 132 | 527 | 82% | High | |
| Total Guideline Score % | 80% | 86% | 80% | 82% | ||||
| Total Guideline Quality Category | High | High | High | High | ||||
*Each item is scored using a 7-point Likert-scale: 1 = lowest possible score, 7 = highest possible score
^Quality category definitions: High > 70%, Moderate 50–69%, and Low quality < 50% for total score %