AGREE II assessments of recent acne treatment guidelines: how well do they reveal trustworthiness as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria?

Abstract

Background

Up-to-date, trustworthy guidelines are a widely relied-upon means of promoting excellent patient care.

Objectives

To determine the quality of recently published acne treatment guidelines by utilizing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, Lenzer et al's red flags and CheckUp.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in bibliographic databases, guideline depositories and using Google^™ to identify acne treatment guidelines published since 2013. Six assessors independently scored each guideline using the AGREE II Reporting Checklist. Guidelines were concomitantly assessed for trustworthiness using the IOM criteria and for Lenzer et al's red flags indicative of potential bias. Updates were screened using CheckUp.

Results

Eight guidelines were identified, two of which were updates. Lowest scoring AGREE II domains across all guidelines were rigour (6/8 poor, one fair, one average) and applicability (4/8 poor, one fair, three average). Two out of the three highest scoring guidelines were developed using AGREE II. No guideline fully met each IOM criterion and all raised at least one red flag indicative of potential bias. One updated guideline did not address seven of 16 items on CheckUp and the other did not address four. Patient involvement in guideline development was minimal.

Conclusions

Use of the AGREE II Instrument during guideline development did not have as great an effect on guideline quality as might be expected. There is considerable room for improvement in acne treatment guidelines in order to satisfy the IOM trustworthiness criteria and avoid bias.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://ift.tt/2syjtdt