Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Protocol
Protocol of an interdisciplinary consensus project aiming to develop an AGREE II extension for guidelines in surgery
  1. George A Antoniou1,2,
  2. Dimitris Mavridis3,4,
  3. Sofia Tsokani3,
  4. Manuel López-Cano5,
  5. Iván D Flórez6,7,
  6. Melissa Brouwers6,
  7. Sheraz R Markar8,
  8. Gianfranco Silecchia9,
  9. Nader K Francis10,
  10. Stavros A Antoniou11,12
  1. 1Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
  4. 4Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
  5. 5Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  6. 6Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7Department of Pediatrics, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  8. 8Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
  9. 9Department of Surgery, University Hospital "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
  10. 10Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Yeovil, UK
  11. 11Medical School, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
  12. 12Department of Surgery, Mediterranean Hospital of Cyprus, Limassol, Cyprus
  1. Correspondence to Dr George A Antoniou; antoniou.ga{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Introduction Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) is an instrument that informs development, reporting and assessment of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has demonstrated the need for improvement in methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines specifically in surgery. We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension document for application in surgical guidelines.

Methods and analysis We have performed a structured literature review and assessment of guidelines in surgery using the AGREE II instrument. In exploratory analyses, we have identified factors associated with guideline quality. We have performed reliability and factor analyses to inform the development of an extension document. We will summarise this information and present it to a Delphi panel of stakeholders. We will perform iterative Delphi rounds and we will summarise the final results to develop the extension instrument in a dedicated consensus conference.

Ethics and dissemination Funding bodies will not be involved in the development of the instrument. Research ethics committee and Health Research Authority approval was waived, since this is a professional staff study only and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by reassigning functions or replacing participants with relevant conflicts. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer reviewed journals, the funders’ websites, social media and direct contact with guideline development organisations and peer-reviewed journals that publish guidelines.

  • surgery
  • protocols & guidelines
  • quality in health care
  • health policy
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @dimi_mavridis, @STsokani, @ManuelLpezCano1, @IvanD_Florez, @melissa_SEPH_UO, @MarkarSheraz, @nader_nkfrancis, @sa_antoniou

  • Contributors GAA: conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting the work, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. DM: conception and design, analysis of data, interpretation of data, drafting the work, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. ST: analysis of data, interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. ML-C: acquisition of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. IDF: conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting the work, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MB: conception and design, interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SRM: interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. GS: interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. NF: interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual data, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.SA: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, drafting the work, final approval for the work to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Funding This project received funding from the United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The funding bodies had no influence on the development of this protocol.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.