Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are formally developed statements that assist users to provide proper health care for a kind of disease and play a significant contribution in healthcare system. This study report the methodological quality of CPGs on constipation.
Methods: The "Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation" (AGREEII) instrument was developed to determine the quality of CPGs. A comprehensive search was developed using five databases and three guideline websites until/up to December, 2015. Four independent authors evaluated the methodological issues of the CPGs by the AGREEII instrument.
Results: We identified 22 relevant guidelines on constipation from 1234 citations. The overall agreement among evaluators was 0.84 using the intra-class correlation coefficient. The mean AGREEII scores for the domains "scope and purpose" (51.77) and "rigor of development" (56.73) were moderate; afterward, three domains "stakeholder involvement" (32.23), "editorial independence" (29.59) and "applicability" (29.14) were low scores. The "clarity and presentation" (23.73) had the lowest scores.
Conclusion: Although existing constipation guidelines may accurately reflect current clinical practices, many guidelines' methodological quality is low. Therefore, more emphasis and attentions should be taken to the development of high-quality guidelines.
Keywords: AGREEII; Clinical practice guideline; Constipation.