Numerous international clinical guidelines for management of psoriasis have recently been published. We evaluated the quality of guidelines published between 2006 and December 2009 using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Eight guidelines from five separate working groups fulfilled inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Four used the standards established by the AGREE instrument in the process of development of their guidelines. Each of the guidelines uniformly received high domain scores (i.e., >90%) for scope and purpose (range of 94–100%), and clarity and presentation (range of 92–100%). Nevertheless, each of the eight guidelines had important shortcomings (item scores ≤2/4, in which 4 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree that specific items have been adequately addressed) in at least one item including: stakeholder involvement (by lack of piloting and inadequate determination of patient views), development rigor (inadequate procedure for updating), applicability (by lack of discussion on organizational barriers), and editorial independence (from funding body). Despite the use of predefined standards in their development, important deficiencies exist in the most recent clinical treatment guidelines for psoriasis.
Cited by (0)
Dr Tan has served as an advisory board member, clinical investigator, speaker, and/or received honoraria from Abbott, Allergan, Amgen-Wyeth, Astellas, Biogen, Centocor, Fujisawa, Galderma, Isotechnika, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson and Johnson, Leo, Novartis, OrthoBiotech, Pfizer, Schering, and Serono.
