Do the clinical practice guidelines for paediatric dentistry meet the quality standards? A meta‐research and quality appraisal using the AGREE II tool
Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) enhance health care and aid clinicians' decisions. Aim To evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry using the AGREE II tool. Design PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, LIVIVO, Lilacs, international guidelines websites, scientific soci...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of paediatric dentistry 2024-07, Vol.34 (4), p.360-371 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) enhance health care and aid clinicians' decisions.
Aim
To evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry using the AGREE II tool.
Design
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, LIVIVO, Lilacs, international guidelines websites, scientific societies, and gray literature were searched until September 2021. We included paediatric dental clinical guidelines and excluded drafts or guidelines for patients with special needs. Two independent reviewers performed quality assessment using the APPRAISAL OF GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH & EVALUATION II (AGREE II) instrument. We calculated the mean overall domain scores (95% confidence interval) for each guideline. We used regression analysis to correlate the score of overall assessment and the six domains of AGREE II with guideline characteristics.
Results
Forty‐four guidelines were included in this study. Highest mean score was for Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation; 58%, 95% CI: 50.8–64.9), whereas the lowest was for Domain 5 (Applicability; 16%, 95% CI: 10.8–21.4). The reporting quality was improved in Domains 1–5 with reporting checklists (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0960-7439 1365-263X 1365-263X |
DOI: | 10.1111/ipd.13133 |