Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
Medientyp:
E-Artikel
Titel:
Systematic evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines intended for pharmacists
Beteiligte:
Beckett, Robert D.;
Linn, Dustin D.;
Tellor, Katie B.;
Sheehan, Amy H.;
Montagano, Kaitlin J.;
Vonada, Brooke
Erschienen:
Wiley, 2019
Erschienen in:
JACCP: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY, 2 (2019) 1, Seite 14-25
Sprache:
Englisch
DOI:
10.1002/jac5.1015
ISSN:
2574-9870
Entstehung:
Anmerkungen:
Beschreibung:
IntroductionThe Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation version II (AGREE II) tool is a validated instrument designed to assess the methodological rigor and transparency of clinical practice guidelines.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to determine the quality of clinical practice guidelines of which pharmacists are indexed as an intended user using AGREE II.MethodsAGREE II was used to assess for methodological rigor and transparency in a systematic evaluation. The National Guideline Clearinghouse was used to identify guidelines published from 2010 to 2016, focused on treatment, and indexed to pharmacists as potential intended users. Each guideline was reviewed according to AGREE II by 3 independent reviewers: 1 clinical specialist pharmacist, 1 drug information pharmacist, and 1 student pharmacist, with domain and item scores calculated according to the AGREE II User Manual.ResultsOf 140 identified guidelines, mean AGREE II domain scores ranged from 54.8 ± 20.1% (Domain 5, Applicability) to 86.5 ± 9.0% (Domain 4, Clarity of Presentation). Mean AGREE II item scores ranged from 38.2 ± 34.4% (Item 5, “The views and preferences of the target population have been sought”) to 91.4 ± 11.2% (Item 17, “Key recommendations are easily identifiable”). For Item 24 (“Rate the overall quality of this guideline”), the mean score was 71.5 ± 17.8% (median: 75.0%). For Item 25 (“I would recommend this guideline for use”), the most common responses were “yes, with modifications” (n= 66, 47.1%) and “yes” (n= 57, 40.7%).ConclusionGuidelines intended for pharmacists were generally high quality, with opportunity for improvement in areas related to applicability.