
| Developing HIV/AIDS Treatment Guidelines (UNAIDS, 1999, 43 p.) |
Part one: Criteria for appraisal of validity of the guidelines development process
|
Responsibility and support for guideline development |
Yes |
No |
N/A* | |
|
1. Does the guideline report identify the agencies responsible for its development and ratification? |
|
|
| |
|
2. Were potential biases or conflicts of interest in funding or support agencies satisfactorily taken into account? |
|
|
| |
|
Guideline development committee membership | ||||
|
3. Is there a list of the individuals who were involved in developing the guidelines and their professional background or affiliation (e.g. medical, guideline development experts, interest groups including patients)? |
|
|
| |
|
4. Did the committee have representatives with experience in HIV/AIDS clinical care and guideline development? |
|
|
| |
|
5. Did the committee include patients or their representatives? |
|
|
| |
|
6. Were potential biases or conflicts of interest among members satisfactorily taken into account? |
|
|
| |
|
Identification and synthesis of evidence | ||||
|
7. Is there a description of the method(s) used to collect (i.e. identify and retrieve) the scientific evidence on which recommendations are based? |
|
|
| |
|
8. Are the methods for collecting scientific evidence satisfactory? |
|
|
| |
|
9. Are the sources of information used in developing recommendations adequately referenced? |
|
|
| |
|
10. Is there a description of the methods used to seek the views of interest groups not on the guideline development committee? |
|
|
| |
|
Strength of scientific evidence | ||||
|
11. Is there a description of the methods used to assess the strength of scientific evidence? |
|
|
| |
|
12. Does the guideline make explicit links between recommendations and the strength of the supporting scientific evidence? |
|
|
| |
|
13. Overall, are the methods used to rate or weigh the scientific evidence satisfactory? |
|
|
| |
|
Pre-testing and peer review | ||||
|
14. Was the guideline subjected to independent peer review by experts outside the committee? |
|
|
| |
|
15. Was the guideline piloted or pre-tested? |
|
|
| |
|
16. If the guideline was piloted or pre-tested, does it report the methods used and the results adopted? |
|
|
| |
|
Future review and revision | ||||
|
17. Does the guideline give explicit details of how it will be routinely reviewed? |
|
|
| |
|
18. Does the guideline identify which bodies are responsible for the review? |
|
|
| |
|
19. Is a review form provided for users to send in their comments? |
|
|
| |
|
Overall assessment of validity of the guideline development | ||||
|
20. Is there, in the guideline development report, an accurate summary that reflects the methods, content and recommendations? |
|
|
| |
|
21. Overall, do the potential biases or conflicts of the guideline s development appear to be adequately dealt with? |
|
|
| |
Part two: Criteria for appraisal of the content and format of the guideline
|
Clinical applicability and flexibility |
Yes |
No |
N/A* | |
|
1. Was the patient population(s) identified to which the guideline is meant to apply? |
|
|
| |
|
2. Is there a description of the professional groups to which the guideline is meant to apply? |
|
|
| |
|
3. Does the guideline indicate at what level of care it is to be used? |
|
|
| |
|
4. Is there a description of the circumstances (clinical or non-clinical) in which exceptions might be made in using it? |
|
|
| |
|
5. Is there a description of ethical issues likely to rise in using the guideline? |
|
|
| |
|
6. Is there a description of how the patients preferences should be taken into account in applying the guidelines? |
|
|
| |
|
7. Do the recommendations collectively cover all clinically relevant circumstances(including diagnostic process, clinical management and referral)? |
|
|
| |
|
8. Are the guideline recommendations consistent with each other? |
|
|
| |
|
Clarity | ||||
|
9. Are the main recommendations presented in a format that is easily understandable (statements, algorithms, or diagrams)? |
|
|
| |
|
10. Does the guideline describe in explicit terms the condition to be detected, treated or prevented? |
|
|
| |
|
11. Does the guideline describe in explicit terms the options for management of the condition? |
|
|
| |
|
12. Does the guideline identify and advise on unacceptable or ineffective current practice? |
|
|
| |
|
13. Are the recommendations written in unequivocal terms? |
|
|
| |
|
14. Can each major recommendation be found easily? |
|
|
| |
|
Description of likely costs and benefits | ||||
|
15. Is there an adequate description of the health benefits expected from the recommended clinical management? |
|
|
| |
|
16. Is there a description of the potential harm or risk that may occur as a result of specific clinical management? |
|
|
| |
|
17. Is there an adequate description of the costs or expenditure expected in a specific clinical management? |
|
|
| |
|
18. Are issues for consideration by managers in health boards and trusts/ practices clearly identified? |
|
|
| |
|
19. Are the recommendations supported by the estimated benefits, possible harm and costs? |
|
|
| |
|
Clinical audit | ||||
|
20. Does the guideline identify key clinical outcomes for the areas of care covered? |
|
|
| |
|
21. Are targets or standards identified? |
|
|
| |
|
22. Does the guideline identify the core clinical data for reporting the relevant clinical care? |
|
|
| |
|
23. Do the core clinical data include key indicators of risk and severity? |
|
|
| |
*N/A: Not applicable