Background
Methods
Author, year, country | Journal | Title | Purpose | Items | Quality domains |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brouwers et al. [5], 2010, Canada/ Europe | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care | To assess the process of guideline development | 23 | 6 (scope and purpose; stakeholder involvement; rigor of development; clarity of presentation; applicability; editorial independence) |
Cluzeau et al. [6], 1999, UK | International Journal for Quality in Health Care | Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines | To assess the quality of clinical guidelines | 37 | 3 (rigor of development; clarity of presentation; implementation issues) |
Grilli et al. [7], 2000, Italy | The Lancet | Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal | To review the quality of guidelines | 3 | None specified |
Hayward et al. [8], 1993, Canada/USA | Annals of Internal Medicine | More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines | To assess the applicability, importance, and validity of guidelines | 9 | None specified |
Helou et al. [9], 1998, Germany | Zeitschrift für Ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitätssicherung | Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in Germany: results of a systemic assessment of guidelines presented on the Internet | To assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines | 41 | 3 (rigor of development; content and format; applicability) |
Institute of Medicine [10], 1992, USA | - | Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use | To examine the soundness of guidelines and to encourage their systematic development | 46 | 7 (validity; clarity; multidisciplinary process; clinical flexibility; reliability and reproducibility; clinical adaptability; scheduled review) |
Liddl et al. [11], 1996, Australia | - | Method for evaluating research guideline evidence | To assess the validity of existing guidelines or to summarize the validity of guidelines during their development | 14 | 3 (descriptive information about the guideline; evaluation criteria for the guideline; overall assessment of the guideline) |
Marshall [12], 2000, Canada | The Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology | A critical approach to clinical practice guidelines | To evaluate the quality, relevance and effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines | 9 | None specified |
Mendelson [13], 1995, USA | Radiologic Clinics of North America | The development and meaning of appropriateness guidelines | To establish appropriateness criteria for guidelines | 8 | None specified |
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [14], 2008, Scotland | - | SIGN 50: A guideline developer’s handbook | To assess the process of guideline development | 23 | 6 (see Brouwers et al.) |
Selker [15], 1993, USA | The American Journal of Cardiology | Criteria for adoption in practice of medical practice guidelines | To establish criteria for adoption of practice guidelines for clinical practice | 8 | None specified |
Shaneyfelt et al. [16], 1999, USA | Journal of the American Medical Association | Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature | To review the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature | 25 | 3 (guideline development and format; evidence identification and summary; formulation of recommendations) |
Shiffman et al. [17], 2003, USA | Annals of Internal Medicine | Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization | To establish a standard for guideline reporting | 18 | None specified |
Ward, Grieco [18], 1996, Australia | Medical Journal of Australia | Why we need guidelines for guidelines: a study of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia | To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia | 18 | 8 (validity; reproducibility; applicability; clinical flexibility; clarity; multidisciplinary process; documentation; scheduled review) |
Results
Framework for quality assessment of HEE quality appraisal instruments
Dimension | Item |
---|---|
A. Purpose and scope
| A1. The reasons for developing the guideline are stated |
A2. The overall objective of the guideline is described | |
A3. The health economic studies for which the guideline was designed are stated | |
A4. The target audience of the guideline is characterized | |
A5. The time frame to which the guideline is meant to apply is specified | |
B. Stakeholder involvement
| B1. The guideline development group consists of individuals from all relevant disciplines |
B2. Conflicts of interest of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed | |
B3. The views and preferences of the target audience have been sought | |
C. Rigor of development process/validity
| C1. The members of the guideline development group and their affiliations are stated |
C2. The methods used for literature search are specified | |
C3. The sources of evidence on which the guideline is based are described | |
C4. The criteria for selecting existing evidence are described | |
C5. The methods for formulating the items are specified | |
C6. The methods used to reach consensus are specified | |
C7. The date for reviewing/updating the guideline is stated | |
C8. The guideline is valid in terms of: | |
C8a. Content (internal) validity
| |
C8b. Criterion (external) validity
| |
C8c. Construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity)
| |
D. Reliability/ reproducibility
| D1. The process of guideline development is documented |
D2. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication | |
D3. The guideline has been piloted/pretested among the target audience | |
D4. The guideline is reliable in terms of: | |
D4a. Inter-rater reliability
| |
D4b. Test-retest reliability
| |
D4c. Parallel-forms reliability
| |
D4d. Internal consistency reliability
| |
E. Clarity of presentation
| E1. The items of the guideline are specific and clearly worded |
E2. The items of the guideline are clearly presented and user friendly | |
E3. The guideline can be used in a straightforward manner | |
E4. Key items are easily identifiable | |
F. Applicability
| F1. The guideline provides a standard reporting format |
F2. The guideline gives a detailed assessment instruction | |
F3. The guideline presents items of methodological quality and transparency | |
F4. The guideline uses a quality score | |
F5. The strengths and limitations of the guideline are specified | |
G. Evaluation
| G1. The methods for evaluating the guideline are described |
G2. The adherence to the guideline by the target audience is described |
Application of the quality assessment framework
Quality appraisal instrument for economic evaluation | Quality appraisal instrument for systematic reviews | |
---|---|---|
Trial-based economic evaluation | 1,2 | 1,2,3 |
Model-based economic evaluation | 1,2,4 | 1,2,4 |
QHES instrument[21] | BMJ guidelines[22] | CHEC list[23] | Philips guidelines[24] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Author; year; journal
| Chiou et al. 2003; Medical Care | Drummond, Jefferson; 1996; British Medical Journal (BMJ) | Evers et al. 2005; International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care | Philips et al. 2006; Pharmacoeconomics |
Affiliation of authors
| Academia and industry | Academia | Academia | Academia |
Published in a peer-reviewed journal
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Number of references
| 35 | 48 | 30 | 22 |
Purpose
| To provide a grading system for assessing the quality of health economic evaluations | To improve the transparency of reporting | To develop a generally accepted criteria list for assessing the methodology of economic evaluation studies in systematic reviews | To identify, review, and consolidate currently available guidelines in order to establish a synthesized and consistent quality assessment framework for decision analytic models |
Development process
| Selection of criteria from 19 existing guidelines; Use of a conjoint analysis survey of 120 international experts to estimate weights for each criterion | Not specified | Selection of items from 15 existing guidelines; Use of a Delphi panel consisting of 23 international experts to generate the final criteria list | Selection and formulation of items by reviewing and consolidating 15 existing guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in HTA |
Time frame
| Before, during and after peer review | Before, during, and after peer review | After peer review | Before, during, and after peer review |
Target audience
| Producers and consumers of economic evaluations | Producers and consumers of economic evaluations | Consumers intending to conduct a systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations | Producers and consumers of model-based economic evaluations |
Preferred analytical technique
| Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis | Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis | Full economic evaluations based on clinical trials: cohort studies, case–control studies, randomized controlled clinical trials | Full economic evaluations based on decision-analytic models |
Standard reporting format included
| 16 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations | Ten sections under the three headings of study design, data collection, and analysis and interpretation of results: study question, selection of alternatives, form of evaluation, effectiveness data, benefit measurement and valuation, costing, modeling, adjustments for timing of costs and benefits, allowance for uncertainty, and presentation of results | 19 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations in systematic reviews | 15 sections under the three key themes of structure, data, and consistency: statement of decision problem/objective, statement of scope/ perspective, rationale for structure, structural assumptions, strategies/comparators, model type, time horizon, disease states/pathways, cycle length, data identification, pre-model data analysis, data incorporation, assessment of uncertainty, internal consistency, and external consistency |
Number of questions/criteria
| 16 | 35 | 19 | 61 |
Operationalization of the questions/criteria
| Yes/No | Yes/No/Not clear/Not appropriate | Yes/No | Yes/No/Unclear/Not applicable |
Use of a quality score
| Yes | No | No | No |
Assessment instruction
| No | Yes | Yes | |
Pilot test of the guideline
| Yes: Ofman et al. [31] | Not specified | Yes, but no details given | Yes |
Pilot review of the quality assessment framework
Dimension | Item | QHES instrument[21] | BMJ guidelines[22] | CHEC list[23] | Philips guidelines[24] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Purpose and scope
| A1 | YES | YES | YES | YES |
A2 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
A3 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
A4 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
A5 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
B. Stakeholder involvement
| B1 | NO | NO | NO | NO |
B2 | YES | YES | NO | YES | |
B3 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
C. Rigor of development process/validity
| C1 | YES | PARTIALLY | YES | YES |
C2 | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
C3 | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
C4 | YES | NO | NO | YES | |
C5 | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
C6 | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
C7 | NO | NO | NO | NO | |
C8 | |||||
C8a
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
C8b
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
C8c
| YES | NO | NO | NO | |
D. Reliability/reproducibility
| D1 | YES | NO | YES | YES |
D2 | NO | YES | NO | YES | |
D3 | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
D4 | |||||
D4a
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
D4b
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
D4c
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
D4d
| NO | NO | NO | NO | |
E. Clarity of presentation
| E1 | NO | YES | YES | NO |
E2 | YES | YES | YES | NO | |
E3 | NO | NO | NO | NO | |
E4 | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
F. Applicability
| F1 | YES | YES | YES | YES |
F2 | NO | YES | YES | YES | |
F3 | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
F4 | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
F5 | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
G. Evaluation
| G1 | NO | YES | YES | YES |
G2 | NO | NO | NO | NO |