Adding a "GRADE" to the quality appraisal of rheumatoid arthritis guidelines identifies limitations beyond AGREE-II.

Select Content Type
Clinical Guidelines
Authored By
Hazlewood GS, Akhavan P, Schieir O, Marshall D, Tomlinson G, Bykerk V, Bombardier C
Authored On
Interests
Rheumatology
Immunology Allergy & Inflammation
Speciality
Rheumatology
Immunology Allergy & Inflammation
Book Detail
volume
67
ISSN
1878-5921
Publication Date
Actions
Download in App
Event Data
{"article_title":"Adding a \"GRADE\" to the quality appraisal of rheumatoid arthritis guidelines identifies limitations beyond AGREE-II.","author":"Hazlewood GS, Akhavan P, Schieir O, Marshall D, Tomlinson G, Bykerk V, Bombardier C","journal_title":"Journal of clinical epidemiology","issn":"1878-5921","isbn":"","publication_date":"2014 Nov","volume":"67","issue":"11","first_page":"1274","page_count":"","accession_number":"25240769","doi":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2014.07.005","publisher":"Elsevier","doctype":"Journal Article","subjects":"Arthritis, Rheumatoid drug therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic standards; Evidence-Based Medicine standards; Humans; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic standards","interest_area":["Rheumatology"," Immunology Allergy & Inflammation"],"abstract":"Objectives: To assess how well treatment recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) address Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) steps and determine whether these steps can be adequately appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II). Study Design and Setting: We systematically reviewed English-language treatment recommendations for the pharmacologic management of RA since 2000, assessed how well GRADE steps were addressed, rated AGREE-II quality, and compared the findings. Results: GRADE steps were poorly addressed by the 44 included guidelines. Few guidelines discussed study limitations and\/or risk of bias (23%), inconsistency (50%), indirectness (39%), imprecision (23%), or potential for publication bias (0%). Observational evidence was cited in 96% but rarely evaluated systematically. Only one guideline considered evidence on patients' preferences for health outcomes, and few provided an explicit justification for the strength of evidence or recommendation. The five GRADE steps that overlapped with AGREE-II questions were addressed more frequently (by 54-100% of guidelines) than the 13 GRADE steps not directly assessed by AGREE-II (0-50%). Among the nine guidelines rated as \"Recommended for use\" by AGREE-II, 8 of 13 GRADE steps were not addressed consistently by any guideline. Conclusion: GRADE's steps are poorly addressed by RA recommendations. AGREE-II provides a broad assessment of quality but lacks sufficient granularity to assess how well a guideline addresses GRADE's steps. Copyright \ufffd 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.","url":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdl&AN=25240769&authtype=shib&custid=ns346513","isPdfLink":true,"isSAML":false,"additionalInfo":{"Authored_By":"Hazlewood GS, Akhavan P, Schieir O, Marshall D, Tomlinson G, Bykerk V, Bombardier C","Journal_Info":"Publisher: Elsevier Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8801383 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1878-5921 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 08954356 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Clin Epidemiol Subsets: MEDLINE","Publication_Type":"Journal Article","Published_Date":"2014-11-01","Source":"Journal of clinical epidemiology [J Clin Epidemiol] 2014 Nov; Vol. 67 (11), pp. 1274-85. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Sep 16.","Languages":"English","Electronic_ISSN":"1878-5921","MeSH_Terms":"Arthritis, Rheumatoid\/*drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic\/*standards, Evidence-Based Medicine\/standards ; Humans ; Publication Bias ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic\/standards","Subjects":"Evidence-Based Medicine standards, Humans, Publication Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic standards, Arthritis, Rheumatoid drug therapy, Practice Guidelines as Topic standards","Title_Abbreviations":"Journal of clinical epidemiology","Volume":"67"},"header":{"DbId":"mdl","DbLabel":"MEDLINE Ultimate","An":"25240769","RelevancyScore":"777","PubType":"Academic Journal","PubTypeId":"academicJournal","PreciseRelevancyScore":"777.458740234375"},"plink":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdl&AN=25240769&authtype=shib&custid=ns346513&group=main&profile=eds","upload_link":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdl&AN=25240769&authtype=shib&custid=ns346513&group=main&profile=eds"}
ISSN
1878-5921
IS_Ebsco
true
Additional Info
["Hazlewood GS, Akhavan P, Schieir O, Marshall D, Tomlinson G, Bykerk V, Bombardier C","Publisher: Elsevier Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8801383 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1878-5921 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 08954356 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Clin Epidemiol Subsets: MEDLINE","Journal Article","2014-11-01","Journal of clinical epidemiology [J Clin Epidemiol] 2014 Nov; Vol. 67 (11), pp. 1274-85. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Sep 16.","English","1878-5921","Arthritis, Rheumatoid\/*drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic\/*standards, Evidence-Based Medicine\/standards ; Humans ; Publication Bias ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic\/standards","Evidence-Based Medicine standards, Humans, Publication Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic standards, Arthritis, Rheumatoid drug therapy, Practice Guidelines as Topic standards","Journal of clinical epidemiology","67"]
Description
Objectives: To assess how well treatment recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) address Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) steps and determine whether these steps can be adequately appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II).<br />Study Design and Setting: We systematically reviewed English-language treatment recommendations for the pharmacologic management of RA since 2000, assessed how well GRADE steps were addressed, rated AGREE-II quality, and compared the findings.<br />Results: GRADE steps were poorly addressed by the 44 included guidelines. Few guidelines discussed study limitations and/or risk of bias (23%), inconsistency (50%), indirectness (39%), imprecision (23%), or potential for publication bias (0%). Observational evidence was cited in 96% but rarely evaluated systematically. Only one guideline considered evidence on patients' preferences for health outcomes, and few provided an explicit justification for the strength of evidence or recommendation. The five GRADE steps that overlapped with AGREE-II questions were addressed more frequently (by 54-100% of guidelines) than the 13 GRADE steps not directly assessed by AGREE-II (0-50%). Among the nine guidelines rated as "Recommended for use" by AGREE-II, 8 of 13 GRADE steps were not addressed consistently by any guideline.<br />Conclusion: GRADE's steps are poorly addressed by RA recommendations. AGREE-II provides a broad assessment of quality but lacks sufficient granularity to assess how well a guideline addresses GRADE's steps.<br /> (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Published Date