Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Mean scores for the 23 items and overall standardized scores for each domain from the 13 guidelines evaluated assessed with AGREE.

From: Methodological quality of English-language genetic guidelines on hereditary breast-cancer screening and management: an evaluation using the AGREE instrument

Domain Item Mean score (range)
1 (Scope and purpose) • The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described 3.7 (2.3 to 4.0)
  • The clinical question(s) covered by the guideline is(are) specifically described 3.6 (2.7 to 4.0)
  • The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described 3.7 (3.3 to 4.0)
  Overall standardized score, % 89.5 (66.7 to 100.0)
2 (Stakeholder involvement) • The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups 3.3 (1.3 to 4.0)
  • The patients' views and preferences have been sought 2.7 (1.3 to 4.0)
  • The target users of the guideline are clearly defined 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The guideline has been piloted among end users 1.1 (1.0 to 1.7)
  Overall standardized score, %) 50.9 (8.3 to 75.0)
3 (Rigour of development) • Systematic methods were used to search for evidence 2.6 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described 2.8 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations 3.1 (1.7 to 4.0)
  • There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence 3.1 (1.3 to 4.0)
  • The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts before its publication 2.3 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • A procedure for updating the guideline is provided 1.7 (1.0 to 4.0)
  Overall standardized score, % 55.5 (7.9 to 96.8)
4 (Clarity and presentation) • The recommendations are specific and unambiguous 3.4 (2.3 to 4.0)
  • The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented 3.4 (2.3 to 4.0)
  • Key recommendations are easily identifiable 3.7 (2.7 to 4.0)
  • The guideline is supported with tools for application 3.0 (1.0 to 4.0)
  Overall standardized score, % 79.7 (55.6 to 100.0)
5 (Applicability) • The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed 2.2 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations have been considered 2.4 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • The guideline presents key review criteria for monitoring and/or audit purposes 1.7 (1.0 to 3.7)
  • Overall standardized score, % 37.0 (0.0 to 88.9)
6 (Editorial independence) • The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body 2.2 (1.0 to 4.0)
  • Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded 2.6 (1.0 to 4.0)
  Overall standardized score, % 47.4 (0.0 to 100.0)