Table 3.

Critics’ commentaries on the five “CPGs” prearranged according to the consistent domains in “AGREE II”.

AGREE II Domain	Strengths	Limitations
Domain 1. Scope and purpose	•Objectives, purpose, health intent, clinical questions, and patient population were clearly mentioned in the CPG full document or the website using the PICO model. β	•Target users were general rather than specific α
Domain 2. Stakeholder Involvement	•GDG members' names, specialties, institutions, and geographical locations were clearly mentioned and easy to find. GDG included methodologist(s). •GDG included members from relevant professional groups including patient representatives. **	•GDG disciplines and roles were not clearly mentioned. α •GDG was missing some key disciplines (e.g. pharmacists and nurses).# •Lack of adequate and clear descriptions of patient participation or preferences and target users.#
Domain 3. Rigor of development	•Detailed evidence search keywords were mentioned ** •The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence was utilized** •Recommendations include health benefits, harms, and side effects of recommendations with or without a discussion of their trade-offs * •All recommendations were linked to their relevant primary source of evidence* •Lists and processes of external review were clearly reported and easy to find * •Updating was clearly mentioned * * •This domain was well-addressed in most included CPGs, where key recommendations were specific, unambiguous, and easily identifiable in all CPGs β, *, **	•Lack of detailed search strategy.# •Strengths and limitations of the body of evidence (evidence tables) were not clearly reported.# •Lack of detailed process for formulation of the recommendations, and discussion of a trade-off be- tween harms and benefits. α •Details and methods of the external review process and outcomes were not clearly reported.#
Domain 4. Clarity and presentation	•Some facilitators and barriers to implementations and clinical governance issues were discussed β, *, ** •A package of CPG Implementation tools was provided like educational tools, protocols, summary document, patient, information clinical algorithm or pathway, baseline assessment sheet, Mobile App. **	•Review and update process was not reported. α •Management of Crisis were not highlighted. α
Domain 5. Applicability	•Quality standards, measures, indicators, and/or clinical audit criteria were provided. β •A formal economic analysis was conducted. *, **	•Facilitators and barriers to implementations were not explicitly mentioned.# •Implementation tools were not provided.# •Quality measures or key performance indicators were not provided.# •No formal economic analysis was conducted.# •Funding and influence statements were not clearly reported.# •No DCOI statements were provided. α
Domain 6. Editorial independence	•Funding with or without an influence statement was mentioned. •DCOI statements were clearly provided.

Abbreviations: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2016) for Peri-operative hypothermia: Assessment and Management, American Society of Peri-Anesthesia Nurses/Agency for Health Care Research and Quality clinical guideline for the prevention of unplanned perioperative hypothermia (ASPAN/AHRQ-2006), The University of Southern Mississippi/Temperature Guideline to Decrease Intraoperative Hypothermia in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia (USM/CPG-2017), University Assistance Complex of Salamanca/Clinical practice guideline “Unintentional perioperative hypothermia” (UACS/CPG-2018), Justus-Liebig university of Giessen/Clinical practice guideline “Preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia” (UKGM/CPG-2015).^α AGREE II Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II; CPG clinical practice guideline or guidance.