ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed to guide practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders to provide optimal health care. This study aims to appraise the CPGs developed in the Philippines using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Ninety-one CPGs were appraised independently by two health-care professionals. CPGs were considered acceptable if they garnered an overall mean score of at least 75.0% for all 6 domains and a domain score of at least 75.0% for rigor of development. A mean score of <75.0% on either of the criteria implied that the CPG needed revision. RESULTS: Overall mean scores of the CPGs ranged from 8.4% to 79.2%, with a mean of 43.9% (standard deviation = 13.4%). In general, CPGs scored better for the domains of clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, and stakeholder involvement. Lowest scores were obtained for the domains of rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Only 1 (1.1%) CPG qualified as acceptable. CONCLUSION: AGREE II is a practical and useful guide in appraising the quality of CPGs. Strengthening technical capacity in various medical fields is essential to improve the quality of CPGs. Rigor of development, applicability issues, and editorial independence should be emphasized in CPG capacity-building activities.
