Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Production and quality of clinical practice guidelines in Argentina (1994–2004): a cross-sectional study

  • María Eugenia Esandi1Email author,
  • Zulma Ortiz1,
  • Evelina Chapman1,
  • Marcelo García Dieguez1, 2,
  • Raúl Mejía3 and
  • Ricardo Bernztein4
Implementation Science20083:43

DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-43

Received: 11 February 2008

Accepted: 13 October 2008

Published: 13 October 2008

Abstract

Background

In the last decades, a sustained increment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) production in the world has been accompanied by a growing concern about their quality. Many studies related to quality assessment of guidelines produced in High Income Countries were published; however, evidence on this topic is scarce in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC). The objectives of this research were: a) to describe guideline production in Argentina at different levels of the health system (macro, meso and micro) from 1994 to 2004; and b) to assess their quality by using the AGREE instrument.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was undertaken to describe guidelines production in Argentina between 1994 and 2004. CPG were identified through Internet and electronic databases (MEDLINE and LILACS). Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select guidelines. Each CPG was independently assessed by two reviewers using the AGREE instrument. Domain scores were calculated as recommended by the AGREE Collaboration. The internal consistency of each domain was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and inter-observer agreement by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).

Results

A total amount of 431 potential CPG were identified, but only 144 were considered CPG. At the end, 101 CPG were included for further assessment. Median standardized score for each domain were: scope = 39%; stakeholder involvement = 13%; rigour of development = 10%; clarity = 42%; applicability = 6%; editorial independence = 0%. Only 22 CPG were recommended with modifications by both appraisers. ICC and Cronbach's alpha for each domain were in all cases moderate or high (greater than 0.40), except for editorial independence.

Conclusion

This study has systematically employed the AGREE instrument for the critical assessment of guidelines produced in a LMIC. Guideline development and diffusion in Argentina from 1994 to 2004 shows a constant increment, although quality of reporting did not improve; moreover, in some aspects it seemed to decline. Much room for improvement of the guideline development process was found at all levels of the health system.

Background

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) are one of the tools most frequently used by health professionals to improve the micro level decision-making process. As defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), they are "systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances"[1]. Guidelines may offer concise instructions on which diagnostic or screening tests need to be order, how to provide medical or surgical services, how long patients should stay in hospital, or other details of clinical practice [2]. The ultimate purpose of developing and using guidelines is to improve the quality of care provided, particularly in areas of clinical uncertainty.

In the last years, a sustained increment in guidelines production was observed all over the world, especially in United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and European countries. Most of these countries have developed national programs for CPG production, dissemination and implementation in order to increase the effectiveness and quality of the health system [3].

Some of these initiatives, which were originally conceived as individual efforts, have been strongly improved by international cooperation through organizations such as the Guidelines International Network (GIN) [4] and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Research Trust [5]. The need for harmonizing and systematizing guideline development and assessment was one of the most important reasons that prompted the establishment of these international organizations [6].

A "good quality guideline" is that one that ultimately leads to improve patient outcome. However, quality of guideline is indirectly measured by assessing in what degree guideline producers minimized potential biases that could occur in the development process and affect validity of its recommendations [7]. Wrong recommendations affect health professionals' credibility on guidelines, and consequently, limit their adoption [2].

In 1999, Shaneyfelt and col. assessed quality of CPG published in Medline between 1985 and 1997 by using a systematically developed instrument. The majority of 279 assessed guidelines did not meet the pre-established methodological standards, being rigour of recommendations one of the most deficiently reported [8]. Similar results were reported by Cluzeau and col.[9], Grilli and col.[10] and Graham and col.[11] in 1999, 2000 y 2001, respectively. In 2003, the AGREE collaboration (currently the AGREE Research Trust) published the results of the first international project aimed at developing and validating a generic instrument for guidelines assessment [7]. This instrument has been translated to different languages, extending its use throughout the world. In the recent years, several studies showed methodology deficiencies in guideline development by using the AGREE instrument [1214].

Almost all research about quality assessment of CPG has been undertaken in High Income Countries (HIC). Studies about quality of guidelines produced and diffused in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC), and particularly in Latin America, are scarce [15]. In Argentina, although many different institutions are interested in CPG development, there is no information about quantity of guidelines produced, and moreover, quality of these documents. The purpose of this research is to describe trends in guidelines production in Argentina and to assess their quality by using the AGREE instrument.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was undertaken to describe guidelines production in Argentina between 1994 and 2004. Documents were considered as CPG if: 1) they included explicit recommendations targeted to health professional decision-making, being this related to: screening and primary prevention, diagnosis, treatment and secondary prevention and/or rehabilitation; 2) they contained bibliographic references and in the case of consensus, participants or responsible institutions were described; 3) they were produced and diffused in the period of study (January 1994- December 2004) and could be freely accessed. The exclusion criteria were: 1) guidelines targeted to patients (patients'guidelines) and/or exclusively oriented to health services organization and not to clinical decision-making; 2) guidelines for which it was not possible to determine if a systematic process was applied in their development (i.e. documents that lacked an explanation of the guideline development methodology that had been used; documents diffused as brief reports which only contained a set of recommendations; documents referred to as guidelines, but that were undertaken by only one author without any reference to the methodology applied); 3) guidelines whose year of development could not be established as it was not stated; 4) guidelines that were not produced by an Argentine institution (adapted guidelines were included only when the adaptation process was explicitly explained).

Electronic databases searching (EDS): executed by an expert by means of the strategy described in Table 1. It was initially developed to be performed in MEDLINE under PubMed platform. Afterwards it was adapted to be used in regional databases (LILACS). All retrieved articles were assessed by the principal investigator. An Internet searching (IS) was also perfomed to identify CPG posted on Websites. Subsequent institutions were classified according to the level of the health system to which they belong (macro, meso and micro level). Table 2 shows the definition used to describe each level.
Table 1

Description of the searching strategy employed in Medline

N° Step

Description of the Search Strategy

1

("guideline" [Publication Type] OR "guidelines" [MeSH Terms] OR "guidelines" [Text Word])

2

("consensus" [MeSH Terms] OR consensus [Text Word])

3

algoryth*

4

#1 OR #2 OR #3

5

argentin*

6

#4 AND #5

Table 2

Internet searching: institutions included at each level of Health System

Level of the Health System

Definition

Macro Level

Organisms of the national, provincial and municipal State in charge of health policy formulation, execution and control. It includes: a) National State: Ministry of Health, including all its decentralized departments, secretaries'offices and their dependent organizations that have health promotion, prevention and care as one of their specific goals; b) Provincial State: Health ministries or offices of the provincial government; c) Municipal State: Health offices of cities that were provincial capitals or have more than 250.000 inhabitants.

 

Websites of Health Technology Assessment agencies were also included at this level.

Meso Level

Intermediate institutions of the public, private and social security sector that provide or manage health services. It includes: individual providers, organizations of providers and health assurance institutions.

Micro Level

It is theoretically constituted by individual health professionals. In practice, scientific or professional associations were selected. Only national organizations were included.

Quality guideline assessment was perfomed through the AGREE instrument. This instrument was selected amongst others as it is the only one that covers practically all the relevant dimensions of the guideline development process; it has been internationally validated; it has fewer items and uses a numerical scale that facilitates the analysis and comparison of the results [7, 16, 17]. This instrument has been widely used all over the world, mainly as a result of its translation into many other languages, including Spanish. This version was already tested in Spain and it proved to be reliable and feasible to apply [13].

A total of 30 health professionals distributed throughout the country were invited to participate in the assessment phase. To be considered elegible, professionals should have had at least one of the following criteria: a) previous clinical epidemiology background; b) knowledge on guidelines development; c) experience with the AGREE instrument. Those professionals that accepted the invitation and fulfilled the eligibility criteria were trained in the use of the AGREE instrument. A 45 days-e-learning program was developed in three stages: I. Self-reading of the tool-kit (15 days): all participants were provided with the Spanish version of the AGREE instrument, the Spanish and English version of the Training Manual. II. Pilot CPG critical appraisal (15 days): one CPG was assessed independently by all professionals. A data collection form designed on an Excel sheet, accompanied by a user-guide were sent to each participant. Results of assessments were returned to the researcher team by e-mail. Results were compared and divergences were discussed with each appraiser through an individual feedback. III. Adjustment phase (15 days): during this last stage, unresolved doubts could be raised by each participant in order to be discussed with the researcher team. Only those professionals that suscessfully completed this three-stage training were formally accepted as appraisers (n = 23). No one received any honorarium.

Whenever was possible, guidelines were assigned taking into account the expertise and specialty of each appraiser. The median numbers of guidelines assessed by each appraiser was 8. According to the AGREE collaboration the domain scores of each CPG were individually considered and scores of individual items in each domain were summed and standardized as a percentage of the maximum possible score for that domain, taking into account the number of appraisers. Relation between quality domain scores and other variables (year of production, level of the health system, guideline publication and category) was assessed through bivariate analysis. As distribution of the dependent variable was generally asymetrical, non- parametrics tests were used. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test the statistical significance of the difference when categories of the grouping variable was higher than 2. When categories were only 2, the Mann Whitney Test was applied.

The internal consistency of each domain was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The reliability between appraisers was determined for each question and each domain of the AGREE. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated within each pair of appraisers and across the pool of appraisers. ICCs and kappa values above 0.75 were considered to represent good, 0.40–0.75 moderate and <0.40 poor reliability.

Feasibility of the instrument was assessed through an ad-hoc instrument that contained two dimensions: usefulness and simplicity; both dimensions were assessed through a 1–5 scale, being 5 the highest score.

Results

Guidelines production in Argentina

A total amount of 431 documents were identified through the combination of both searching strategies (EDS and IS) – websites of 247 institutions were assessed through IS-. Most of retrieved documents 84% (363) were identified through IS and 16% through EDS. Of the 431 documents, 33% (144) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Excluded documents were classified as follows: i) lacking of year of publication or diffusion (n = 121), lacking of references or authors' identification in the case of consensus (n = 110), lacking of a methodology section (n = 107); ii) document oriented to health services organization, targeted to macro level decisions for coverage purpose and/or exclusively targeted to patients (n = 103); iii) not free access document (n = 54); iv) documents that only contains a set of recommendations or were not developed in the period of study (n = 12). A number of documents accomplished more than one exclusion criteria.

Of the 144 CPG selected in 7 cases the full-text could not be retrieved. We intended to assess the remaining 137 CPG by two appraisers. Due to non response, 28 CPG were assessed by one appraiser and 8 CPG by no appraiser. These CPG were excluded from our analysis. We present the results of the 101 CPGs that were assessed by two appraisers.

CPG production increased along the study period, being this positive trend statistically significant (Figure 1). Scientific societies were the principal CPG producer during the study period. Interaction of institutions belonging to different levels of the health system was unfrequent (12% – 17/144). The type of interaction most frequently observed was between the macro level (the National MOH) and scientific societies (Table 3). Most CPG were about diagnosis and treatment/management: only 22% (31/144) were oriented to prevention and screening practices. Although international CPG were referenced in some of the selected CPG, an explicit adaptation process was never reported.
Table 3

Amount of CPG produced by level and institutions of the Health System

Health System Level

Type of Institution

Total number of CPG

Macro

National Health Ministry

13

 

Provincial Public Health Department

0

 

Local Public Health Department

0

 

Health Technology Assessment Agencies (n = 2)

0

Meso

Public and Private Hospitals

15

 

Hospitals Network

0

 

Prepaid Enterprises

0

 

Social Security Organizations

23

Micro

Scientific Societies

76

More than one level

Macro/Meso/Micro

3

 

Macro/Micro

14

 

TOTAL

144

Figure 1

Temporal evolution of the total number of CPG produced per year Ref: (†): Estimated by χ2 for trends .

Quality assessment

Of the 144 CPG selected, 101 (71%) were assessed and 43 were eliminated (in 7 cases the full-text could not be retrieved; 8 CPG could not be assessed by none appraisers and 28 were appraised by only one of the two appraisers).

The majority of the CPG assessed received very low scores in nearly all domains (Figure 2). Over 80% of the CPG were assessed with scores lower than 50%, except in those domains corresponding to "clarity" and "scope". In comparison to the results of the other domains, clarity was the best scored aspect of CPG. Analysis by item showed median values lower than 3 in the 23 items of the AGREE instrument: 14 items received the lowest possible score (1) (Table 4).
Figure 2

Results of the analysis of the 101 Argentine guidelines on the six AGREE instrument domains.

Table 4

Scores by item of the AGREE instrument

Domains and items of the AGREE instrument

Median value

Interquartile range

Domain 1: Scope and purpose

  

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

1.5

1.5

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

2

1

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

2.5

1.5

Domain 2: Stakeholder involvement

  

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

1.5

1

5. The patients' views and preferences have been sought

1

0.5

6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined

1

1

7. The guideline has been piloted among end users

1

0

Domain 3: Rigour of development

  

8. The systematic methods were used to search for evidence

1

0

9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described

1

0

10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described

1.5

0.5

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

2

1

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

1

1

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

1

0.5

14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided

1

0

Domain 4: Clarity and presentation

  

15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous

2.5

1.5

16. The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented

2.5

1.5

17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable

2.5

1.5

18. The guideline is supported with tools for application

1

0.5

Domain 5: Applicability

  

19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed

1

0.5

20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations have been considered

1

0

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

1

1

Domain 6: Editorial independence

  

22. The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body

1

0

23. Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded

1

0

There was no statistically significant difference in the median of standardized domain scores alongside the study period (Figure 3). No association between CPG quality and other variables, like method of diffusion of the guideline (published vs. not published), level of production (macro, meso, micro and interaction among levels), type of guideline (prevention vs. treatment/diagnosis management guideline) and scope (national vs. regional/local guidelines) was observed. Statistically significant differences were only observed among scores corresponding to the participation domain (guidelines produced by an interaction of institutions belonging to more than one level of the health system had higher scores than guidelines produced by institutions belonging to only one level) and clarity domain (prevention CPG had higher scores than treatment/diagnosis management guidelines) (Table 5).
Figure 3

Temporal evolution of the median standardized score for each AGREE instrument domain.

Table 5

Comparison of CPG quality according to independent variables

 

Median [Interquartile range] of standardized domain scores

 

Scope

Participation

Rigour

Clarity

Applicability

Independence

Diffusion year

      

Period 1994–2000 (n = 22)

39% [40%]

15% [22%]

6% [10%]

42% [46%]

6% [17%]

0% [0%]

Year 2001 (n = 13)

33% [47%]

12% [29%]

10% [15%]

42% [46%]

0% [19%]

0% [0%]

Year 2002 (n = 19)

33% [28%]

8% [17%]

10% [15%]

50% [67%]

6% [6%]

0% [8%]

Year 2003 (n = 28)

39% [29%]

13% [13%]

12% [11%]

43% [40%]

11% [19%]

0% [0%]

Year 2004 (n = 19)

28% [39%]

13% [17%]

8% [14%]

33% [25%]

6% [11%]

0% [8%]

P value

0,66

0,89

0,28

0,68

0,52

0,72

Publication

      

Published (n = 39)

39% [33%]

13% [46%]

10% [14%]

42% [29%]

6% [17%]

0% [0%]

Not Published (n = 62)

39% [33%]

10% [13%]

12% [14%]

44% [38%]

11% [17%]

0% [0%]

P value

0,93

0.76

0,23

0,40

0,24

0,43

Level of the Health System

      

Macro (n = 12)

42% [44%]

13% [15%]

11% [13%]

61% [42%]

11% [18%]

0% [0%]

Meso (n = 25)

28% [31%]

8% [13%]

12% [12%]

37% [37%]

6% [11%]

0% [0%]

Micro (n = 49)

39% [32%]

13% [17%]

7% [14%]

41% [28%]

6% [11%]

0% [0%]

More than one level (n = 15)

39% [50%]

21% [13%]

12% [17%]

41% [37%]

6% [22%]

0% [0%]

P value

0,12

0,01

0,24

0,11

0,21

0,94

Guideline Scope

      

National CPG (n = 74)

39% [33%]

13% [13%]

10% [15%]

42% [34%]

6% [18%]

0% [0%]

Regional/Local CPG (n = 27)

28% [25%]

8 % [13%]

12% [14%]

38% [38%]

6% [11% ]

0% [0%]

P value

0.11

0.12

0.24

0.52

0.35

0.4

CPG category

      

Dx/treatment management (n = 71)

39% [28%]

13% [13%]

9% [14%]

42% [33%]

6% [17%]

0% [0%]

Prevention (n = 25)

39% [50%]

13% [19%]

9% [12%]

54% [35%]

6% [17%]

0% [0%]

P value

0,19

0,33

0,53

0,02

0,85

0,77

ICC and Cronbach's alpha for each domain were in all cases moderate or high (0.46–0.74), except for Editorial Independence which showed very low values (0.20) (Table 6). Most of appraisers considered that the AGREE instrument was useful and simple to apply (usefulness, median value: 5 and simplicity, median value: 4). Scope was selected by the group of appraisers as the most difficult domain to be assessed. Average time (standard deviation) employed per CPG assessed was 58 (± 36) minutes.
Table 6

Reliability scores of the AGREE instrument

 

Reliability measures

 

Single Rater ICC (95% CI)

Average of raters ICC (95% CI)

Cronbach alpha

Scope

0,33 (0,24–0,42)

0,74 (0,65–0,81)

0.75

Participation

0,09 (0,05–0,16)

0,46 (0,28–0,61)

0.55

Rigour

0,09 (0,05–0,14)

0,58 (0,45–0,70)

0.67

Clarity

0,26 (0,19–0,34)

0,74 (0,65–0,81)

0.82

Applicability

0,16 (0,09–0,24)

0,53 (0,38–0,66)

0.56

Editorial Independence

0,05 (-0,02–0,16)

0,20 (-0,09–0,42)

0.23

Discussion

In the last years, development of guidelines in Argentina has progressively increased; however, quality did not improve. This situation could be clearly resumed in the phrase of Sudlow and Thomson: "Quantity but no quality" [18].

Similiar results were reported by some studies performed in HIC between 1999 and 2005 [814, 19]. In many cases, these findings could have contributed to prompt the establishement of national guidelines programs with the aim of systematizing the guideline development process. However, and even when, comparatively to LMIC, important improvements have been achieved in relation to guidelines production, this issue of "pluralism and low quality" still raises serious concerns in HIC. A recent report from the National Institute of Medicine (USA) questionated the validity and reliability of many guidelines produced in this country due to the lack of rigourness, objectivity and transparency of the development methodology that had been applied [20].

Quality of guidelines produced in LMIC, and particularly in Latin America, is practically unknown. To our knowledge, there is only one CPG quality assessment that precedes the Argentine research, which was performed in Brazil. In this study, twenty-eight guidelines developed by the Brazilian Medical Association were independently assessed by 2 appraisers using the AGREE instrument [15]. This is the second guideline appraisal study in a Latin American country, but on a larger scale than the first conducted in Brazil.

Quality of the assessed Argentine guidelines was far from ideal: scores were low and very low in all domains and items of the AGREE instrument. Many factors might have contributed to this situation.

First, low quality could have been the result of the absence of an explicit policy for guidelines production and evaluation during the period under assessment. Argentine health system is highly complex and integration of activities of multiple stakeholders is difficult to achieve without a clear guidance. Although many institutions of the three levels of the health system participated in this process, a more integrated approach is required in order to balance the interests, preferences and knowledge of different stakeholders whose participation in the guideline development process is not only required, but need to be guaranteed.

Second, low quality scores of Argentine guidelines could be explained by a slower penetration and consolidation of the evidence-based movement in LMIC countries in comparison to developed countries. As described by Burgers, development of guidelines in Europe, Australia and North America started in the 80's and 90's [3]. In the United States, the Consensus Development Program at the National Institute of Health developed its first guideline in 1977. In the last 30 years, all these organizations have accumulated a vast experience in guideline development, dissemination and implementation. Currently, principles of evidence-based-medicine dominate almost all of these national guideline programs. The creation of international networks, like the GIN, as well as the conduct of projects like the AGREE, have clearly contributed to the improvement and standardization of these processes in the participant countries. Contrastingly, LMIC countries, with few exceptions, did not take part of these experiences. Diffusion and dissemination of appropiate methods for evidence-based guidelines development is limited in these countries. According to the results of this study, in Argentina, as late as 2004, this process was not systematized and still relied heavily on the opinion of experts.

Thirdly, standards proposed by the AGREE instrument could be relatively high for the context of a LMIC and specially if it is taken into account the fact that, except for the last two years (2003 and 2004), the period during which Argentine guidelines production was described preceded the year of diffusion of this instrument (2003). In some LMIC, language barriers and limited accesibility to updated biomedical literature can negatively impact on the use of relevant and important evidence to support guidelines recommendations. In this sense, an invaluable resource for Argentine guidelines developers is the Cochrane Library Plus, which can be freely accessed and contains the Spanish version of systematic reviews produced by the Cochrane Collaboration [21]. Even when currently there is broad agreement on the need for systematic reviews to inform recommendations, this type of evidence was rarely referred in Argentine guidelines [22]. Therefore, networking activities betweeen guideline producers and Argentine Cochrane Centers shoud also be promoted. As reported by Varonen and col., this kind of cooperation showed to be very positive in many senses [23].

Another factor that could have influenced quality of Argentine guidelines is the lack of economical and human resources devoted to guideline production. Since the cost of producing evidence-based guidelines is relatively too high for health budgets of LMIC countries, a systematic methodology to adapt international guidelines would be an efficient way of improving not only the quantity but also their quality [24]. Internationally developed guidelines can be adapted to the national context, representing a considerable saving of money. However, an explicit and systematic adaptation process should be performed as guidelines' applicability and transferability can be strongly influenced by different factors, e.g.: population needs (prevalence of disease, baseline risk status), setting (availability of resources) and other factors that modify translation of recommendations into practice [25, 26]. In 2006, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), in collaboration with the National Ministry of Health, developed and validated an adaptation process in order to increase the quality of guidelines produced in the country. Currently, a virtual learning course is implemented by NAM, with the purpose of improving national and local capacities in guideline adaptation [27].

Finally, findings of this assessment highlight the need of improving the reporting of the editorial independence of guideline producers. Practically none Argentine guideline reported conflict of interests or funding sources. Lack of transparency was also reported by Papanikolaou et al. in an evaluation of 191 published guidelines: only 7 (3.7%) disclosed potential conflicts of interest [28]. In the case of Argentine guidelines, omission could have been unintentional or, on the contrary, intentional (financial ties might have existed in some situations and deliberately hidden by guideline authors). However, regardless of the intent of guideline developers' actions, explicit declaration of conflict of interests at the begining of the process is strongly recommended by most international organizations as a way of reducing the probability of biased recommendations and increasing guidelines' credibility [29].

Some methodological issues must be addressed. First of all, evaluation was restricted to guidelines that were diffused and identified on Websites or in journals. Diffusion is not the same as development as there might have been guidelines produced and used in health institutions that could have not been identified by the searching strategies applied in this research. In spite of this limitation, the study was focalized on those guidelines diffused by well-known and reputed institutions in Argentina, which have a high probability of being adopted by healthcare professionals. Secondly, Internet searching was not exhaustive at the meso level, concretely in hospitals: as a reduced number of these institutions have Websites, only 3 out of 10 eligible hospitals could be assessed. Thirdly, even when the AGREE collaboration strongly suggests 4 appraisers per each CPG, this could not be performed because of lack of resources. All researchers and appraisers work ad-honorem. However, in spite of the inclusion of only two appraisers per guideline, reliability scores were acceptable. In fourth place, only CPG documents were considered for the assessment. Finally, there are some limitations inherent to the instrument applied. Quality of guideline is assessed on the basis of what is reported: quality of reporting is not the same as quality of the development process. As in other quality assessment studies, none content analysis of the recommendations was performed [30].

To our knowledge this is the first time a study of this kind has been undertaken in Argentina and Latin America, the Brazilian research excepted. Its execution was the first step in the building of a network of professionals interested in improving CPG development, dissemination and implementation in the country. Its findings might be very useful in the set up of a national evidence based guideline development program.

Conclusion

This study was one of the firsts that systematically employed the AGREE instrument for the critical assessment of guidelines produced in a LMIC. The AGREE instrument can serve as a model to identify improvement opportunities in the guidelines development process of these countries. In this sense, this research shows the low quality of guidelines produced and points out areas to which training iniatiatives should be oriented.

Guideline development and diffusion in Argentina from 1994 to 2004 shows a constant increment, although quality of reporting did not improve; moreover, in some aspects it seemed to decline. Institutions involvement in this process was dispersed, rarely integrated, and not systematized. A national debate between main stakeholders is urgently needed in order to contribute to the definition of a clear and explicit policy for CPG development, dissemination and implementation in the country.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their special thanks to all the health professionals that agreed to participate as guideline appraisers: Betina Nishishinya; Elsa Andina; Lydia Otheguy; Martin Olmos; Mónica Confalone; Graciela Berenstein; Gustavo Badarotti; Martin Díaz; Florencia Koch; Irma Aznar; Mariana Pasquali; Graciela Sarmiento; Matías Mirofsky; Gustavo Piñero; María del Carmen Esandi; Norberto Schapochnik; Martín Urtasun; Facundo Goya.

They would also like to express their gratitude to María de los Angeles Lopez-Olivo and Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw for their support to this research and to both reviewers for their invaluable feedback.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Instituto de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas, Academia Nacional de Medicina, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires
(2)
Area de Estudio de los determinantes epidemiológicos de la salud, Universidad Nacional del Sur
(3)
Programa de Medicina Interna General, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires
(4)
Hospital de Pediatría "Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan"

References

  1. Definitions of Key Terms. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Edited by: Field MJ, Lohr L. 1990, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 33-51. 1
  2. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999, 318 (7182): 527-530.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgers J, Grol R, Klazinga N, Makela M, Zaat J, for the AGREE Collaboration: Towards Evidence-Based Clinical Practices. An international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2003, 15 (1): 31-45. 10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Guidelines International Network (GIN). [http://www.g-i-n.net]
  5. The AGREE Research Trust. [http://www.agreetrust.org/]
  6. Ollenschlager O, Marshall C, Qureshi S, Rosenbrand K, Burgers J, Makela M, Slutsky J, Board of Trustees 2002, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N): Improving the quality of health care: using international collaboration to inform guideline programmes by founding the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Qual Saf Health Care. 2004, 13 (6): 455-460. 10.1136/qshc.2003.009761.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. The AGREE Collaboration: Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003, 12: 18-23. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Shaneyfelt T, Mayo-Smith M, Rothwangl J: Are Guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the peer-review medical literature. Jama. 1999, 285: 1900-1905. 10.1001/jama.281.20.1900.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cluzeau F, Littlejohns P, Grimshaw J, Feder G, Moran S: Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 1999, 11 (1): 21-28. 10.1093/intqhc/11.1.21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Grilli R, Magrin N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A: Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet. 2000, 355: 103-106. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02171-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham I, Beardall S, Carter A, Glennie J, Hebert P, Tetroe J, McAlister F, Visentin S, Anderson G: What is the quality of drug therapy in Canada?. CMAJ. 2001, 165 (2): 157-163.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Harpole L, Kelley MJ, Schreiber G, Toloza EM, Kolimaga J, McCrory DC: Assessment of the Scope and Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Lung Cancer. CHEST. 2003, 123: 7S-20S. 10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.7S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Navarro Puerto MA, Ruiz Romero F, Reyes Domínguez A, Gutiérrez Ibarlucea I, Hermosilla Gago T, Alonso Ortiz del Río C: ¿Las Guías que nos guían son fiables? Evaluación de las Guías de Práctica Clínica Españolas. Rev Clín Esp. 2005, 11: 533-40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. MacDermid JC, Brooks D, Solway S, Switzer-McIntyre S, Brosseau L, Graham ID: Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Services Research. 2005, 5: 5-18. 10.1186/1472-6963-5-18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Nobre MR, Bernardo WM, Jatene FB: Critical Appraisal of 28 Guidelines developed by the Brazilian Medical Association. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Evidence Based-Health Care Teachers & Developers: Palermo (Italy). [http://www.ebhc.org/2003/abstracts_book.pdf]
  16. Rico Iturrioz R, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua Batarrita J, Navarro Puerto MA, Reyes Domínguez A, Marín León I, Briones Pérez de la Blanca E: Valoración de escalas y criterios para la evaluación de Guías de Práctica Clínica. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2004, 78: 457-467.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Vlayen J, Aertgeerts B, Hannes K, Sermeus W, Ramaekers D: A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005, 17 (3): 235-242. 10.1093/intqhc/mzi027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sudlow M, Thomson R: Clinical guidelines: quantity without quality. Qual Health Care. 1997, 6 (2): 60-61. 10.1136/qshc.6.2.60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Varonen H, Makela M: ractice guidelines in Finland: availability and quality. Qual Health Care. 1997, 6: 75-79. 10.1136/qshc.6.2.75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine (IOM): Knowing what works in health care: A roadmap for the nation. 2008, Washington, DC: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Cochrane Library Plus. [http://www.update-software.com/Clibplus/Clibplus.asp]
  22. Cook D, Greengold NL, Ellrodt G, Weingarten S: The Relation between Systematic Reviews and Practice Guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1997, 127 (39): 210-216.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Varonen H, Jousimaa J, Helin-Salmivaara A, Kunnamo I: Electronic primary care guidelines with links to Cochrane reviews – EBM Guidelines. Family Practice. 2005, 22: 465-469. 10.1093/fampra/cmi029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, Davies BL, Dunn S: Facilitating the Use of Evidence in Practice: Evaluating and Adapting Clinical Practice Guidelines for Local Use by Health Care Organizations. JOGNN. 2002, 31: 599-611.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 13. Adaptation, applicability and transferability. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006, 4: 25-10.1186/1478-4505-4-25. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1712227]View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. The Adapte Collaboration. [http://www.adapte.org/]
  27. Programa de Mejoramiento del Uso de Guías de Práctica Clínica. Instituto de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas, Academia Nacional de Medicina. [http://www.epidemiologia.anm.edu.ar/gpc/]
  28. Papanikolaou GN, Baltogianni MS, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DS, Haidich AB, Giannakakis IA, Ioannidis JPA: Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2001, 1: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-1-3. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11405896]View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Boyd E, Bero L: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 4. Managing conflicts of interest. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006, 4: 16-10.1186/1478-4505-4-16. [http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/4/1/16]View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Burgers J: Guideline Quality and Guideline Content: Are They Related?. Clinical Chemistry. 2006, 52: 3-4. 10.1373/clinchem.2005.059345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Esandi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.