A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>The objectives of this review are to: 1) appraise the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) providing pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological intervention recommendations, and 2) summarize the recommendations provided by the included CPGs and compare them where possible.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A systematic search was performed. Three trained appraisers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs using a validated and reliable instrument, the Appraisal of Guidelines in Research and Evaluation II. Six domains were considered: 1) score and purpose; 2) stakeholder involvement; 3) rigor of development; 4) clarity of presentation; 5) applicability; and 6) editorial independence. The domains consist of a total of 23 items each scored on a 7-point scale. High quality CPGs were identified if they had a domain score above 60% in rigor of development, and two other domains.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of the three included CPGs, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) CPGs were considered to be of high quality, but the German Society for Pediatric Rheumatology was of lower quality. Domains one to four had high domain scores across the guidelines (mean (standard deviation)): 72.76 (13.80); 66.67 (9.81); 64.67 (7.77); and 87.00 (9.64), respectively. Lower scores were obtained for applicability (14.00 (5.57)) and editorial independence (43.44 (7.02)). Recommendations varied across CPGs due to differences in context, target audience (general practitioners, rheumatologists, and other multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) and patients’ disease presentations. Despite this variability, progression of pharmacological treatment did not conflict between CPGs. Recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions were vague and the interventions considered varied between CPGs.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Overall, recommendations were based on a paucity of evidence and weak study designs. Further research is needed on interventions in JIA, as well as higher quality CPGs to facilitate implementation of the best evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice.</p></div

Scope and context of the CPGs.

<p>sJIA = systemic JIA; MAS = macrophage activation syndrome; NSAIDs = non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; DMARDs = disease modifying antirheumatic drug</p><p>Scope and context of the CPGs.</p

Quality scores of included CPGs using AGREE II.

<p>ACR: American College of Rheumatology; GKJR: German Society for Pediatric Rheumatology; RACGP: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; <math><mrow>x<mo>¯</mo></mrow></math>: mean; SD: standard deviation.</p><p>^aRating established using the AGREE II 7-point scale.</p><p>Quality scores of included CPGs using AGREE II.</p

Characteristics of the experts involved in the development of the WHAT questionnaire.

<p>Characteristics of the experts involved in the development of the WHAT questionnaire.</p

Agreement by raters concerning the content validity of the items of the parent report WHAT questionnaire.

<p>Agreement by raters concerning the content validity of the items of the parent report WHAT questionnaire.</p

Agreement by raters concerning the content validity of the items of the child report WHAT questionnaire.

<p>Agreement by raters concerning the content validity of the items of the child report WHAT questionnaire.</p

Socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics of youth and their parents.

<p>Socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics of youth and their parents.</p

Agreement by experts on the domains of a CAM questionnaire.

<p>Agreement by experts on the domains of a CAM questionnaire.</p