Clinical practice guidelines for perinatal bereavement care: A systematic quality appraisal using AGREE II instrument
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to evaluate and analyze the methodological quality of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for perinatal bereavement care and provide a reference for implementing best clinical practices.Methods We performed a systematic and comprehensive search in five electronic databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wan Fang Database), eight guideline databases, and six websites of professional organizations from March 2021 to June 2021. Four researchers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to appraise the selected CPGs independently. The inter-rater reliability of AGREE II domains was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% CI.Results We included a total of 8 CPGs. The mean scores of six domains ranged from the lowest score of 46.61% (editorial independence) to the highest score of 87.85% (clarity of presentation). Subgroup analysis showed no statistical difference. Each domain achieved "good" and "very good" intraclass reliability. Two CPGs were deemed as grade A (strongly recommended), five were rated as grade B (recommended with modifications), and one was evaluated as grade C (not recommended).Conclusions Healthcare professionals in obstetrics and neonatology play an important role in helping bereaved parents and families to cope with perinatal loss. High-quality CPGs for perinatal bereavement care can serve as useful resources to improve the quality and outcomes of clinical practice. More efforts should be made to disseminate the best practices for perinatal bereavement care. When implementing GCPs in countries or regions with different backgrounds, professional translations, strict validations, and cultural adaptations should be taken into account.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An analysis of the methodological quality of eight published perinatal bereavement care clinical practice guidelines revealed only two were strongly recommended for direct and immediate use.
“An analysis of the methodological quality of eight published PBC clinical practice guidelines, revealed only two were “strongly recommended” for direct and immediate use (13).”
From Parent hospital experiences following stillbirth (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Zhuang, S., Ma, X., Xiao, G., Zhao, Y., Hou, J., & Wang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Lanzhou University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Yanhong
- Venue
- Journal of Pediatric Nursing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-09
- Volume
- 66
- Pages
- 49-56
- ISSN
- 0882-5963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4281971084
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pediatric Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lanzhou University Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Keywords
- perinatal bereavement, perinatal loss, guideline quality assessment, AGREE II, guideline implementation, bereaved parents, bereavement support, obstetrics, neonatology
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Hospice Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review