Advancing guideline quality through country-wide and regional quality assessment of CPGs using AGREE: a scoping review

Abstract

Background and objectiveClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evaluated for quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool, and this is increasingly done for different countries and regional groupings. This scoping review aimed to describe, map, and compare these geographical synthesis studies, that assessed CPG quality using the AGREE tool. This allowed a global interpretation of the current landscape of these country-wide or regional synthesis studies, and a closer look at its methodology and results.Study design and methodsA scoping review was conducted searching databases Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos, and grey literature on 5 October 2021 for synthesis studies using the later versions of AGREE (AGREE II, AGREE-REX and AGREE GRS) to evaluate country-wide or regional CPG quality. Country-wide or regional synthesis studies were the units of analysis, and simple descriptive statistics was used to conduct the analysis. AGREE scores were analysed across subgroups into one of the seven Sustainable Development Goal regions, to allow for meaningful interpretation.ResultsFifty-seven studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria, which had included a total of 2918 CPGs. Regions of the Global North, and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia were most represented. Studies were consistent in reporting and presenting their AGREE domain and overall results, but only 18% (n = 10) reported development methods, and 19% (n = 11) reported use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Overall scores for domains Rigor of development and Editorial independence were low, notably in middle-income countries. Editorial Independence scores, especially, were low across all regions with a maximum domain score of 46%. There were no studies from low-income countries.ConclusionThere is an increasing tendency to appraise country-wide and regionally grouped CPGs, using quality appraisal tools. The AGREE tool, evaluated in this scoping review, was used well and consistently across studies. Findings of low report rates of development of CPGs and of use of GRADE is concerning, as is low domain scores globally for Editorial Independence. Transparent reporting of funding and competing interests, as well as highlighting evidence-to-decision processes, should assist in further improving CPG quality as clinicians are in dire need of high-quality guidelines.