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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of paediatric dentistry 2024-07, Vol.34 (4), p.360-371
Main Authors: Elagami, Rokaia Ahmed, Laux, Caroline Mariano, Gallegos, Claudia López, Tedesco, Tamara Kerber, Cóvos, Thais Gimenez, Braga, Mariana Minatel, Mendes, Fausto Medeiros, Cenci, Maximiliano Sérgio, Raggio, Daniela Prócida
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
AGREE II tool
Check lists
Clinical medicine
Clinical practice guidelines
Dentistry
meta‐research
paediatric dentistry
Pediatrics
quality appraisal
Quality control
Regression analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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