gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Application of the electronic version of implementation guideline appraisal instrument (eGLIA2) in the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines of acute diarrhea in children

Meeting Abstract

  • J.L. Acosta - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  • J.O. Contreras - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  • J.M. Sierra - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  • M.E. Tamayo - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  • L.H. Lugo - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
  • I.D. Florez - Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocP114

DOI: 10.3205/12gin226, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin2268

Published: July 10, 2012

© 2012 Acosta et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background: It is advisable searching and evaluating published clinical practice guidelines (CPG) before the development of de novo guideline. It is important to evaluate the possibility of implementation of recommendations of CPG; eGLIA tool is useful for evaluating the intrinsic barriers of the adaptation of GPC. Before developing a CPG of diarrhea in children, we evaluated the best available guidelines on the topic.

Objective: To evaluate the applicability of eGLIA in evaluating diarrea CPG susceptible to adaptation. To assess the perception of eGLIA from evaluators.

Methods: We evaluated the best 6 CPG of diarrhea according to the AGREE-II instrument. eGLIA for 4 was used in CPG trained evaluators. Online version was used, following recommendations of authors. Perception was investigated using the instrument.

Results: Four evaluators completed eGLIA. All CPG had difficulties in at least one of the domains of eGLIA. A guide had barriers in 4 domains. There was borderline evaluation in 2 domains. We were unable to assess the domain computability. The perception of the instrument showed difficulties in the use of eGLIA.

Discussion: eGLIA didn't discriminate in the selection of adaptable CPG. Domains are not clear for the selection. Computability domain is not assessable for the selection of a CPG to adapt. eGLIA use was considered difficult. Several domains have been previously evaluated by the AGREE-II.

Implications: We do not recommend eGLIA in the process of selecting adaptive CPG. Authors are encouraged to summarize the questions of the domains.