Table 2 Item scores
From: Updated clinical guidelines experience major reporting limitations
| Â | Updated CGs reporting each item n (%) |
|---|---|
Presentation of the updated clinical guideline | |
 Item 1: The updated version can be distinguished from the previous version of the clinical guideline. | 60 (100) |
 Item 2: The rationale for updating the clinical guideline is reported. | 37 (61.7) |
 Item 3: Changes in the scope and purpose between the update and the previous version are described and justified. | 34 (56.7) |
 Item 4: The sections reviewed in the updating process are described. | 40 (66.7) |
 Item 5: Recommendations are clearly presented and labelled as new, modified, or not changed. Deleted recommendations are clearly noted. | 16 (26.7) |
 Item 6: Changes in recommendations are reported and justified. | 23 (38.3) |
Editorial independence | |
 Item 7: The panel participants in the updated version are described. | 57 (95.0) |
 Item 8: Disclosures of interest of the group responsible for the updated version are recorded. | 58 (96.7) |
 Item 9: The role of the funding body for the updated version is identified and described. | 30 (50.0) |
Methodology of the updating process | |
 Item 10: The methods used for searching and identifying new evidence in the updating process are described. | 49 (81.7) |
 Item 11: The methods used for evidence selection in the updating process are described. | 47 (78.3) |
 Item 12: The methods used to assess the quality of the included evidence in the updating process are described. | 46 (76.7) |
 Item 13: The methods used for evidence synthesis in the updating process are described. | 28 (46.7) |
 Item 14: The methods used for external review of the updated version are described. | 23 (38.3) |
 Item 15: The methods and plan for implementing the changes of the updated version in practice are described. | 23 (38.3) |
 Item 16: The plan and methods for updating the new version in the future are reported. | 24 (40.0) |