Author/Year/Country	Methods	Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria	Quality of evidence/LoE		SoR
AAOS 2021 [36]	SLR Delphi consensus Formulation of workgroup, formulation of PICO questions, systematic literature search and review, recommendation development, review, revision and approval.	✓	GRADE	Strong: Evidence from two or more “High” quality studies with consistent findings for recommending for or against the intervention. Moderate: Evidence from two or more “Moderate” quality studies with consistent findings, or evidence from a single “High” quality study for recommending for or against the intervention Limited: Evidence from one or more “Low” quality studies with consistent findings or evidence from a single “Moderate” quality study recommending for or against the intervention Consensus: There is no supporting evidence, or higher quality evidence was downgraded due to major concerns	Strong Moderate Limited Consensus
VADoD 2020 [38]	SLR Delphi consensus Formulation and prioritization of key questions and definition of critical outcomes, systematic literature review, patient focus group, development of recommendation and grading, review and submission for approval.	✓	GRADE	Not described	Strong: high confidence in the quality of the available scientific evidence, a clear difference in magnitude between the benefits and harms of an intervention, similar patient or provider values and preferences, and understood influence of other implications Weak: work group has less confidence after assessment and believe additional evidence may change the recommendation.
Zhang 2020 [32]	SLR Delphi consensus Formulation of clinical questions (Delphi techniques), PICO formulation, systematic literature search, GRADE process, recommendation formation	✓	GRADE	High: Level A Moderate: Level B Low: Level C Very low: Level D	Strong: Class 1 Weak: Class 2
ACR 2019 [3]	SLR Formulation of PICO questions, systematic literature search, scoping and clinical question development, interprofessional voting for recommendation formation.	✓	GRADE	SLR of RCTs. Systematic reviews of observational studies were only included if judged by Voting Panel would add critical information for the formulation of recommendation.	Strong: compelling evidence of efficacy and that benefits clearly outweighed harms and burdens Conditional: quality of the evidence proved low or very low and/or the balance of benefits versus harms and burdens was sufficiently close that warrant a shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician.
OARSI 2019 [4]	SLR Formulation of clinical questions, systematic literature search, voting and formulation of recommendation	✓	GRADE	Recommendation level Level 1A, 1B: ≥75% vote in favour Level 2: 60–74% vote in favour Level 3: 41–59% vote in favour Level 4B: 26–40% vote in favour Level 4A, 5: ≤25% vote in favour	Strong: Voting Panel members feel confident that the benefits of a particular intervention outweigh the harms, or that the harms outweigh the benefits. Conditional: recommendation that carries risks that could potentially outweigh the benefit. Quality of evidence and uncertainty in values and preference are also taken into consideration. Good clinical practice statement: recommendations made based on expert experience in the absence of direct, supportive RCT evidence
ESCEO 2019 [34]	SLR Systematic literature search, review of summary of evidence, voting of recommendation.	✓	GRADE	Not described	Strong: ≥75% vote in favour Weak
ISR 2019 [29]	SLR Delphi consensus Based on framework of the Guidelines International Network Adaptation Working Group to identify, appraise, synthesize and customize the existing international guidelines to the needs of the Italian healthcare context Defining scope of the guideline and formulation of clinical questions. Systematic review of all guidelines endorsed by international scientific societies, development of recommendation in accordance to AGREE reporting checklist, external peer review and rating.	✓	AGREE II	Oxford Levels of Evidence: 1: From meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials or from at least one RCT 2: From ≥1 controlled study without randomisation or from ≥1 cohort study 3: From ≥1 case-control study 4: From case-series or poor-quality cohort and case-control studies 5: From expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities.	Not described
RACGP 2018 [37]	SLR Systematic literature search build upon the literature in the first edition of the guideline, grading of recommendation, formulation of recommendation, voting, endorsement by NHMRC. Searches: systematic reviews and RCTs	✓	GRADE	Quality of evidence High Moderate Low Very low	Strong: The working group is very confident that the benefits of an intervention clearly outweigh the harms (or vice versa) Conditional: Denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits or harms, such as when the evidence quality is low or very low, or when personal preferences or costs are expected to impact the decision, and as such refer to decisions where consideration of personal preferences is essential for decision making
EULAR 2018 [28]	SLR EULAR standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (according to AGREEII) Performed according to AGREEII. Formulation of research questions, systematic literature review, formulation of overarching principles, presentation of evidence from SLR and voting.	✓	AGREEII	Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 1a: systematic review of RCTs 1b: individual RCT 2a: systematic review of cohort studies 2b: individual cohort study (including low-quality RCT; eg,<80% follow-up) 3a: systematic review of case-control studies 3b: individual case-control study 4: case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies) 5: expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or ‘first principles’	Grade of recommendation A: based on consistent level 1 evidence B: based on consistent level 2 or 3 evidence or extrapolations from level 1 evidence C: based on level 4 evidence or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 evidence D: based on level 5 evidence or on troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level Level of Agreement: anonymous votes for LOA, on a numeric rating scale from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement) for each recommendation. Mean and 95% CI of scores were presented.
AAOS 2017 [35]	SLR Delphi consensus Formulation of PICO questions, systematic literature search, review of evidence and integration of evidence to formulate recommendations and voting Searches: full peer-reviewed published report of a clinical study.	✓	GRADE	Prognostic Study Design Quality Key: High quality study: <2 flaws Moderate quality study: ≥2 and ​< ​4 flaws Low quality study: ≥4 and ​< ​6 flaws Very low quality study: ≥6 flaws	Strong: Evidence from two or more “High” quality studies with consistent findings for recommending for or against the intervention. Moderate: Evidence from two or more “Moderate” quality studies with consistent findings, or evidence from a single “High” quality study for recommending for or against the intervention Limited: Evidence from two or more “Low” quality studies with consistent findings or evidence from a single “Moderate” quality study recommending for against the intervention or diagnostic or the evidence is insufficient or conflicting and does not allow a recommendation for or against the intervention Consensus: There is no supporting evidence. Recommendation is based on clinical opinion
TLAR 2017 [30]	SLR Delphi consensus Systematic literature search, development of recommendation according to evidence, voting, reviewed and finalised draft. Search: preference for meta-analysis, systematic reviews and RCTs.	✓	Oxman-Guyatt index and Jadad Scale	Ia: meta-analysi of RCTs Ib: ≥ 1 RCT IIa: ≥ well-designed IIIb: ≥ 1 well-designed quasi-IV: expert committee	Oxman-Guyatt index (or metanalysis and systematic reviews); Jadad scale: RCTs
PANLAR 2016 [31]	SLR Delphi consensus SLR performed by literature search team, expert consensus through Delphi technique, approval by members of working groups.	Not available in manuscript	Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine	Level A: Information from various randomised clinical trials or meta-analyses. Level B: Information from a randomised clinical trial or nonrandomized studies. Level C: Experts' consensus, case studies, or care standards	Jadad scale I: There is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure or treatment is beneficial, useful, or effective. II: Conflicting evidence and/or differing opinions about the efficacy of a procedure or treatment. IIa: Evidence and/or agreement favour usefulness or efficacy. IIb: Usefulness or efficacy is not established by evidence or opinion. III: Conditions for which there is evidence, general agreement, or both that the procedure treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.
NICE 2014 [39]	SLR Expert consensus if absence of proof. Economic considerations Formulation of PICO questions by guideline development group, generation of summaries of evidence according to GRADE profiles, quality appraisal and grading of clinical evidence, review of evidence of cost-effectiveness, development of recommendations, peer review.	✓	GRADE	Overall quality of outcome evidence in GRADE: High: Future research is very unlikely to change the estimate of effect Moderate: Future research is likely to have an important impact in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low: Future research is very likely to have an important impact in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low: Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.	Not described
EULAR 2013 [27]	SLR Delphi consensus Delphi consensus. Systematic literature reviews, extensive discussion on recommendations with data from SLR, voting for level of agreement.	✓	EULAR standard Operating Procedure (SOP)	Ia: meta-analysis of RCTs Ib: ≥ 1 RCT IIa: ≥ 1 controlled trial without randomisation IIIb: ≥ 1 well-designed quasi- experiment study IV: expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities.	Level of agreement: anonymous votes for LOA, on a numeric rating scale from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement) for each recommendation. Mean and 95% CI of scores were presented.
MSR 2013 [33]	SLR Development of clinical questions, systematic literature review, grading of evidence, external review of drafted guideline.	✓	US/Canadian Preventive Services Task Force	I: evidence from ≥1 properly RCT II-1: Evidence from well-designed controlled trials without randomisation II-2: Evidence from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from >1 centre or group. II-3: Evidence from multiple time series with or without intervention III: Opinions of respected authorities based on clinical experience; descriptive studies and case reports; or reports of expert committees	Modified from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network A: ≥ 1 meta analysis, systematic review or RCT or evidence rated as good and directly applicable to the target population B: Evidence from well conducted clinical trials, directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results, or evidence extrapolated from meta-analysis, systematic review or RCT C: Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities; indicates absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality

Abbreviation:

AAOS: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

ACR: American College of Rheumatology.

AGREE II: Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II.

ESCEO: European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

EULAR: European League Against Rheumatism.

GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

ISR: Italian Society for Rheumatology.

LoE: Level of evidence.

NHMRC: National Health and Medical Research Council.

NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

MSR: Malaysian Society of Rheumatology.

OARSI: Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

PANLAR: Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology.

RACGP: Royal Australasian College of General Practitioners.

RCT: randomised controlled trial.

SLR: systematic literature review.

SoR: strength of recommendation.

TLAR: Turkish League Against Rheumatism.

VADoD: Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defence.