Table 2.
Suitability and currency assessments of IWGDF guideline to adopt or adapt; using a customised NHMRC table of factors*
| Item No. | Item question | Assessor 1 | Assessor 2 | Assessor 3 | Assessor 4 | Total score | Total score % | Suitability category^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | ||||||||
| 1 | Is the clinical or public health context similar to Australia? | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 23 | 82% | High |
| 2 | Are the population, intended users and settings comparable? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 3 | Are the recommended interventions available in Australia? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 25 | 89% | High |
| 4 | Are the guideline questions relevant in the new (Australian) context? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 5 | Do the values and preferences considered in the guideline reflect the new (Australian) context? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 6 | Are relevant outcomes used? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 6 items) | 36 | 37 | 40 | 41 | 154 | 92% | High | |
| Currency | ||||||||
| 7 | When was the evidence review conducted (i.e. final literature search date)? | July 2018 | Oct 2018 | July 2018 | July 2018 | < 3 years | Moderate | Moderate (Currency)# |
| 8 | Is the evidence contained out of date? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 9 | Are new studies’ findings conducted since the review likely to change the evidence? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 10 | Has new evidence superseded the information contained in the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 11 | Does new evidence contradict the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 4 applicable items) | 24 | 28 | 24 | 24 | 108 | 96% | High | |
| Trustworthiness | ||||||||
| 12 | Is there a detailed description of the development process? | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| 13 | Were conflicts of interest declared and managed? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 14 | Was a grading system used for the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 15 | Are the evidence tables clearly laid out and accurate? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
| 16 | Was the evidence review systematic and well-documented? | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 5 items) | 32 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 135 | 96% | High | |
| Access to evidence | ||||||||
| 17 | Are the tables detailing the source evidence (e.g. GRADE Evidence to Decision tables) available? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 18 | Can permission be sought to use these tables? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 54 | 96% | High | |
| Implementability | ||||||||
| 19 | Is information provided in the guideline to assist implementation? | 4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 64% | Moderate |
| 20 | Are steps taken to improve the guideline’s implementability? | 4 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 61% | Moderate |
| Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 8 | 12 | 5 | 10 | 35 | 63% | Moderate | |
| Acceptability | ||||||||
| 21 | Are the recommendations acceptable? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| 22 | Do the recommendations relate to current practice? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 53 | 95% | High | |
| Total Guideline Score (sum of all 21 applicable items) | 124 | 139 | 132 | 136 | 531 | 90% | High | |
| Total Guideline Score % | 84% | 95% | 90% | 93% | ||||
| Total Guideline Suitability Category | High | High | High | High | ||||
*Each item is scored using a 7-point Likert-scale: 1 = lowest possible score, 7 = highest possible score
^Suitability category definitions: High > 70%, Moderate 50–69%, and Low suitability < 50% for total score %
#Currency category definitions: High < 1 year, Moderate 1–3 years, and Low currency > 3 years since systematic review search date