Reporting of updating process in updated clinical guidelines: A systematic assessment




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:

Vernooij R1, Martínez García L1, Flórez ID2, Hildago L1, Brouwers M3, Poorthuis M4, Alonso-Coello P1
1 Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain, Spain
2 McMaster University, Canada, University of Antioquia, Colombia, Colombia
3 McMaster University, Canada., Canada
4 University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands., The Netherlands
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Hector Pardo-Hernandez

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: The Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp) has recently been developed as a tool to evaluate the completeness of reporting the updating process in updated clinical guidelines (CGs). However, the reporting of updated CGs has not yet been systematically assessed yet.

Objectives: 1) To assess the completeness of reporting the updating process in a sample of updated CGs; and, 2) to explore the inter-observer reliability of the CheckUp.

Methods: We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs, with a systematic review of the evidence, including at least one recommendation, and published in 2015. Three independent reviewers assessed each included CGs using CheckUp. This checklist includes 16 items that address 1) presentation of an updated guideline (6 items;2) editorial independence (3 items); and, 3) methodology of the updating process (7 items). We calculated the median score per item, per domain, and overall. We determined the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results: Sixty CGs were included. The median score per domain was 3 (range 1-6) for presentation, 2.5 (range 0-3) for editorial independence, and 4.5 (range 0-7) for methodology. The median overall score was 10 (range 5-16). CGs developed by a European or international organisation obtained a higher overall score compared to American and Asian ones. The overall agreement among the three reviewers was adequate (ICC 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-0.95).

Conclusions:The reporting of updating process in updated CGs is suboptimal. CheckUp can be used to inform guideline developers to improve the reporting of updated CGs.