Two clinical practice guidelines published in 2012 and in 2013 by the Haute autorité de santé (HAS) respectively entitled "Adult chronic kidney disease" (clinical pathway guidelines) and "Clinical utility of vitamin D measurements" (Health technology assessment) contradict each other on a notable point: in 2012 the HAS recommend to measure blood concentrations of vitamin D once a year in all patients with chronic kidney disease whereas in 2013 the HAS recommend to use this test only for the ambulatory follow-up of patients three months after kidney transplantation. This contradiction encouraged us to evaluate the methodological quality of these two guidelines with the help of the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument which is consensual at an international level, in particular at the WHO (World Health Organization) and at the European Union. At the end of this comparative evaluation this preliminary hypothesis might be proposed: a more rigorous development (AGREE domain n̊3) as well as a higher editorial independence (AGREE domain n̊6) in 2013 than in 2012 (scores respectively are 57% and 56% in 2013 versus 24% and 25% in 2012) ensure a higher validity to the 2013 recommendations than to the 2012 recommendations. However this hypothesis is weakened by the subjective intrinsic value of the AGREE tool, and by various methodological shortcomings in these two guidelines. Therefore we conclude, using the AGREE terminology, that the methods for developing those guidelines are too uncertain, above all in 2012, for recommending their use without modifications.
Keywords: AGREE quality; Haute autorité de santé; clinical practice guidelines; recommendations; vitamin D.