|
Domain 1 – Scope and purpose
|
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J5
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 1. The guideline general objectives are specifically described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 2. The health issues covered by the guideline are specifically described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
46 |
| 3. The population (patients, public, etc.) for whom the guideline is intended is specifically described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| Total |
21 |
21 |
21 |
21 |
17 |
18 |
21 |
140 |
| Suitability for the domain 1 – 94.4% |
| Domain 2 – Stakeholder involvement |
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J65
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 4. The guideline development team includes ndividuals from all relevant professional groups. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
46 |
| 5. We sought to understand the target population’s opinions and preferences (patients, public, etc.). |
7 |
1 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
41 |
| 6. The guideline target users (patients, public, etc.) are clearly defined. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| Total |
21 |
21 |
21 |
21 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
135 |
| Suitability for the domain 2 – 90.4% |
|
Domain 3 – Rigor of development
|
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J5
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| 8. Criteria for selecting evidence are clearly described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| 9. Strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 10. Methods for formulating recommendations are clearly described. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
46 |
| 11. The benefits, side effects and health risks were considered in formulating the recommendations. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the evidence supporting them. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 13. The guideline was externally reviewed by experts before publication. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is available. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| Total |
56 |
56 |
56 |
56 |
51 |
48 |
56 |
379 |
| Suitability for the domain 3 – 96.1% |
|
Domain 4 – Clarity of presentation
|
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J5
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 15. Recommendations are specific and unambiguous. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 16. Different options for addressing the health condition or problem are clearly presented. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 17. Key recommendations are easily identified. |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| Total |
21 |
21 |
20 |
21 |
19 |
18 |
21 |
141 |
| Suitability for the domain 4 – 95.2% |
|
Domain 5 – Applicability
|
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J5
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 18. The guideline describes the facilitators and barriers to its implementation. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
47 |
| 20. The potential resource implications arising from the implementation of recommendations have been considered. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
46 |
| 21. The guideline presents criteria for its monitoring and/or auditing. |
7 |
4 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
44 |
| Total |
28 |
25 |
28 |
28 |
24 |
24 |
27 |
184 |
| Suitability for the domain 5 – 92.8% |
|
Domain 6 – Editorial independence
|
J1
|
J2
|
J3
|
J4
|
J5
|
J6
|
J7
|
TOTAL
|
| 22. The opinion of the funding body did not influence the guideline content. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| 23. Conflicts of interest of team members who developed the guideline were recorded and addressed. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
48 |
| Total |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
12 |
14 |
96 |
| Suitability for the domain 6 – 97.6% |