Original Article
AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.001Get rights and content

Section snippets

Redesign of AGREE

In response to these issues, the AGREE Next Steps Consortium was established and undertook two studies [6], [7]. As part of the first study, the consortium introduced a new seven-point response scale and evaluated its performance and measurement properties, analyzed the usefulness of the AGREE items for decisions made by different stakeholders, and systematically elicited stakeholders’ recommendations for changes to the AGREE items and domains [6]. In the second study, the consortium evaluated

Changes to AGREE II items

The 23 items in AGREE II are grouped into the same six domains as in the original AGREE instrument. These domains are scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. The key changes from the original document involved refinements to the purpose, response scale and items of the instrument.

The purpose of the AGREE II is more explicitly stated. The new version of the instrument is designed to assess the quality

Changes to the AGREE II User’s Manual

The user’s manual (Appendix 1) was rewritten and extended with the following information linked to each item:

  • Explicit descriptors for the different levels on the new seven-point scale

  • A description that defines each concept underlying the item and inclusion of specific examples

  • Direction on common places to look for desired information within the guideline document or accompanying documentation

  • A list of common terms or labels to represent the concept

  • Guidance on how to rate the item, including

Using AGREE II

Depending on the structure and length of the guideline document, quality-related assessment of a guideline using AGREE II will take 1.5 hours, on average, per appraiser. Although basic knowledge of the principles of evidence-based decision-making and health care methodology can facilitate its use, the new user’s manual should allow novices to use the instrument with confidence. Furthermore, although content-specific expertise on the topic of a guideline is not necessary, it may improve the ease

Acknowledgements

The AGREE Next Steps Consortium thanks the US National Guidelines Clearinghouse for helping to facilitate the identification of eligible practice guidelines for the research program. The consortium also thanks Ms. Ellen Rawski for her support on the project as research assistant from September 2007 to May 2008.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (12)

  • F. Vigna-Taglianti et al.

    Quality of systematic reviews used in guidelines for oncology practice

    Ann Oncol

    (2006)
  • Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine

  • G.P. Browman et al.

    Population-based cancer control and the role of guidelines—towards a “systems” approach

  • T.M. Shaneyfelt et al.

    Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature

    JAMA

    (1999)
  • D.L. Streiner et al.

    Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use

    (2003)
  • M.C. Brouwers et al.

    AGREE Next Steps Consortium. Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement

    CMAJ

    (2010)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

See related research articles by Brouwers and colleagues, available at www.cmaj.ca.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Competing interests: Melissa Brouwers, Francoise Cluzeau and Jako Burgers are trustees of the AGREE Research Trust. No competing interests declared by the other authors.

Contributors: Melissa Brouwers conceived and designed the study, led the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. All of the authors made substantial contributions to the study concept and the interpretation of the data, critically revised the article for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript to be published.

Funding: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Michelle Kho is supported by a CIHR Fellowship Award (Clinical Research Initiative).

Members of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium: Dr. Melissa C. Brouwers, McMaster University and Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ontario; Dr. George P. Browman, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Island, BC; Dr. Jako S. Burgers, Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO, and Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, IQ Healthcare, Netherlands; Dr. Francoise Cluzeau, Chair of AGREE Research Trust, St. George’s University of London, London, UK; Dr. Dave Davis, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, USA; Prof. Gene Feder, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Dr. Béatrice Fervers, Unité Cancer et Environement, Université de Lyon – Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon 1, EA 4129, Lyon, France; Dr. Ian D. Graham, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario; Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario; Dr. Steven E. Hanna, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Ms. Michelle E. Kho, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Prof. Peter Littlejohns, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK; Ms. Julie Makarski, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Dr. Louise Zitzelsberger, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Ottawa, Ontario.

This article is being published as a parallel publication with the Canadian Medical Association.

View full text