Assessment of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines using CheckUP list/tool




Poster session 3 Friday: Evidence Tools / Evidence synthesis - creation, publication and updating in the digital age


Friday 15 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00


All authors in correct order:

Silva RAM1, Molino CDGRC2, Santos NCL2, Melo DOD1
1 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Chemical and Pharmaceutical, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
2 Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:


Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Medical practice is constantly changing due the continuous emergence of new evidence of treatments. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are an important tool used in the medical practice and it’s important to be updated to assure that the best recommendations are available. Therefore, we presented a reporting quality evaluation of 10 updated CPGs using the CheckUp list.

Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of updated CPGs that recommend pharmacological treatment for depression using the CheckUP list.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search on 12 specific databases. Inclusion criteria were: CPGs for the treatment of depression in primary care, that comprised pharmacological recommendations for the adult or elderly, written in English, Portuguese or Spanish, published between 2011 and 2016, and were updated versions. CPGs designed for local use or for a specific population were excluded. Two reviewers first screened CPGs titles for eligibility. Then, another reviewer assessed each full-text CPGs for inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the reviewers. We used the CheckUP list to assess the reporting quality in updated guideline. Two reviewers evaluated the selected CPGs and the discrepancies were resolved through consensus. We classified as high reporting quality CPGs which presented 70% or more of positive checks. CPGs which presented 40% or less of positive checks were classified as low reporting quality.

Results: The search strategy retrieved 38 records, of which 10 were evaluated using the CheckUP list. Only 3 CPGs were classified as high reporting quality and 5 CPGs were classified as low reporting quality (Table 1). The issues in which the most failed updates were mostly related to clearly reporting what and how was updated (Figures 1 and 2). The items that received more answers 'unclear' (both 60%) talked about financing (9) and implementation (15).

Conclusions: Our data suggests that CPGs developers should improve the reporting quality of the CPGs updated versions to clarify health professionals regarding the modifications conducted.