Cited by 3,790Clinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care

Open access
Brouwers, M. C., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Burgers, J. S., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., Graham, I. D. +6 more·2010·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines, which are systematically developed statements aimed at helping people make clinical, policy-related and system-related decisions,[1][1],[2][2] frequently vary widely in quality.[3][3],[4][4] A strategy was needed to differentiate among guidelines and ensure that those

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1503/cmaj.090449

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]3. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guide- lines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer- reviewed medical literature [see comments]. JAMA 1999;281:1900-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brouwers, M. C., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Burgers, J. S., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., Graham, I. D., Grimshaw, J., Hanna, S. E., Littlejohns, P., Makarski, J., Zitzelsberger, L., & for the AGREE Next Steps Consortium
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • BC Cancer Agency (CA)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CA)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2010-07-05
Volume
182
Issue
18
Pages
E839-E842
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2129688566
Cited by
3,790
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 349 · 2025: 375 · 2024: 358 · 2023: 303 · 2022: 362 · 2021: 364 · 2020: 319 · 2019: 244 · 2018: 229 · 2017: 202 · 2016: 187 · 2015: 160 · 2014: 134 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 67
FWCI
63.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
AGREE II, guideline quality assessment, guideline evaluation, guideline development, health care guidelines
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Manuals as Topic, Program Development, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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