MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study
Journal Article

AGREE II appraisals of clinical practice guidelines in rehabilitation showed poor reporting and moderate variability in quality ratings when users apply different cuff-offs: a methodological study

2021
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
-AGREE II overall assessments are poorly reported in rehabilitation appraisals of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).-Two third of appraisals applied cut-offs to judge guideline quality-Quality ratings of guidelines varied moderately applying different cut-offs To analyze the reporting characteristics of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II appraisals in rehabilitation and explore how much quality ratings of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) vary applying different cut-offs. We conducted a methodological study re-analyzing data of an overview of AGREE II CPG appraisals in rehabilitation. Reporting characteristics of appraisals and methods used for quality rating were abstracted. We applied the most frequent cut-offs retrieved on all CPG sample to explore changes in quality ratings (i.e., high/low). We included 40 appraisals (n = 544 CPGs).The AGREE II overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was reported in 26 appraisals (65%) and the overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in 17 (42.5%). Twenty-five appraisals (62.5%) reported the use of cut-offs based on domains and/or overall assessments. Application of the most reported cut-offs led to variability in quality ratings in 26% of the CPGs, of which 92% CPGs shifted their rating from low to high-quality and 8% shifted from high to low-quality. Rehabilitation stakeholders should take care to select the highest quality CPG in view of the poor reporting of AGREE II overall assessment 1 and 2 and moderate variability of quality ratings.