Table 3 Guideline developer perceptions of explicit guidance on language and format provided in existing guidance tools
Users’ report of explicit guidance provided in each tool | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AGREE II | AGREE-REX | IOM | G-I-N | Guide-lines 2.0 | GLIA | GRADE | |
Language subdomains in the GLAFI | |||||||
Na | 50 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 10 | 4 | 78 |
Succinct and uncomplicated | 21 (42%) | 2 (50%) | 7 (36.8%) | 3 (27.3%) | 4 (40%) | 3 (75%) | 36 (46.2%) |
Actionable/effective writing | 15 (30%) | 2 (50%) | 6 (31.6%) | 4 (36.4%) | 2 (20%) | 4 (100%) | 41 (52.6%) |
Framing | 13 (26%) | 1 (25%) | 7 (36.8%) | 2 (18.2%) | 0 | 0 | 32 (41.0%) |
Relative advantage | 9 (18%) | 0 | 6 (31.6%) | 2 (18.2%) | 0 | 1 (25%) | 26 (33.3%) |
Standardized components | 16 (32%) | 0 | 7 (36.8%) | 3 (27.3%) | 4 (40%) | 0 | 29 (37.2%) |
Document layout | 10 (20%) | 0 | 6 (31.6%) | 2 (18.2%) | 3 (30%) | 0 | 20 (25.6%) |
Document structure | 9 (18%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | 3 (27.3%) | 2 (20%) | 0 | 23 (29.5%) |
Information visualization | 7 (14%) | 0 | 6 (31.6%) | 1 (9.1%) | 3 (30%) | 0 | 19 (24.4%) |