Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison between the AGREE I and AGREE II

From: Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument: comparison between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II

AGREE I

AGREE II

Change from AGREE I to AGREE II

Domain

No

Item

Item

No

Domain

1. Scope and purpose

1

The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described

The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described

1

1. Scope and purpose

No change

2

The clinical question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described

The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described

2

Change in underline part

3

The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described

The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described

3

Change in underline part

2. Stakeholder involvement

4

The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups

The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups

4

2. Stakeholder involvement

No change

5

The patients’ views and preferences have been sought

The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought

5

Change in underline part

6

The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. No

The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. No

6

No change

7

The guideline has been piloted among end users

   

Delete item. Incorporated into user guide description of item 19

3. Rigour of development

8

Systematic methods were used to search for evidence

Systematic methods were used to search for evidence

7

3. Rigour of development

No change, renumber to 7

9

The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described

The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described

8

No change, renumber to 8

  

The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described

9

New item

10

The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described

The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described

10

No change

11

The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations

The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations

11

No change

12

There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence

There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence

12

No change

13

The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication

The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication

13

No change

14

A procedure for updating the guideline is provided

A procedure for updating the guideline is provided

14

No change

4. Clarity of presentation

15

The recommendations are specific and unambiguous

The recommendations are specific and unambiguous

15

4. Clarity of presentation

No change

16

The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented

The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented

16

Change in underline part

17

Key recommendations are easily identifiable

Key recommendations are easily identifiable

17

No change

18

The guideline is supported with tools for application

The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application

19

5. Applicability

Change in underline part, renumber to 19, change in domain from #4 clarity of presentation to #5 applicability

5. Applicability

19

The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed

The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice

18

Change in underline part, renumber to 18.

20

The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations have been considered

The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered

20

Change in underline part

21

The guideline presents key review criteria for monitoring and/ or audit purposes

The guideline presents monitoring and/ or auditing criteria

21

Change in underline part

6. Editorial independence

22

The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body

The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline

22

6. Editorial independence

Change in underline part

23

Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded

Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed

23

Change in underline part

Overall guideline assessment

  

Rate the overall quality of this guideline

1

Overall guideline assessment

New item

1

I would recommend this guideline for use

I would recommend this guideline for use

2

Renumber to 2