Skip to main content

Table 2 Distribution of scores and percentages for each item in the RIGHT checklist for the included CPGs (n = 66)

From: Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

RIGHT checklist Reported Not reported Not applicable
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Basic information
1a Identify the report as a guideline, that is, with “guideline(s)” or “recommendation(s)” in the title. 64 97.0% 2 3.0% 0 0.0%
1b Describe the year of publication of the guideline. 45 68.2% 21 31.8% 0 0.0%
1c Describe the focus of the guideline, such as screening, diagnosis, treatment, management, prevention or others. 54 81.8% 12 18.2% 0 0.0%
2 Provide a summary of the recommendations contained in the guideline. 26 39.4% 40 60.6% 0 0.0%
3 Define new or key terms, and provide a list of abbreviations and acronyms if applicable. 42 63.6% 24 36.4% 0 0.0%
4 Identify at least one corresponding developer or author who can be contacted about the guideline. 53 80.3% 13 19.7% 0 0.0%
Background
5 Describe the basic epidemiology of the problem, such as the prevalence/incidence, morbidity, mortality, and burden (including financial) resulting from the problem. 40 60.6% 26 39.4% 0 0.0%
6 Describe the aim(s) of the guideline and specific objectives, such as improvements in health indicators (e.g., mortality and disease prevalence), quality of life, or cost savings. 53 80.3% 13 19.7% 0 0.0%
7a Describe the primary population(s) that is addressed by the recommendation(s) in the guideline. 32 48.5% 34 51.5% 0 0.0%
7b Describe any subgroups that are given special consideration in the guideline. 10 15.2% 56 84.8% 0 0.0%
8a Describe the intended primary users of the guideline (such as primary care providers, clinical specialists, public health practitioners, program managers, and policy-makers) and other potential users of the guideline. 42 63.6% 24 36.4% 0 0.0%
8b Describe the setting(s) for which the guideline is intended, such as primary care, low- and middle-income countries, or in-patient facilities. 23 34.8% 43 65.2% 0 0.0%
9a Describe how all contributors to the guideline development were selected and their roles and responsibilities (e.g., steering group, guideline panel, external reviewer, systematic review team, and methodologists). 48 72.7% 18 27.3% 0 0.0%
9b List all individuals involved in developing the guideline, including their title, role(s) and institutional affiliation(s). 51 77.3% 15 22.7% 0 0.0%
Evidence
10a State the key questions that were the basis for the recommendations in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) or other format as appropriate. 11 16.7% 55 83.3% 0 0.0%
10b Indicate how the outcomes were selected and sorted. 5 7.6% 61 92.4% 0 0.0%
11a Indicate whether the guideline is based on new systematic reviews done specifically for this guideline or whether existing systematic reviews were used. 22 33.3% 44 66.7% 0 0.0%
11b If the guideline developers used existing systematic reviews, reference these and describe how those reviews were identified and assessed (provide the search strategies and the selection criteria, and describe how the risk of bias was evaluated) and whether they were updated. 12 18.2% 5 7.6% 49 74.2%
12 Describe the approach used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. 32 48.5% 34 51.5% 0 0.0%
Recommendations
13a Provide clear, precise, and actionable recommendations. 38 57.6% 28 42.4% 0 0.0%
13b Present separate recommendations for important subgroups if the evidence suggests that there are important differences in factors influencing recommendations, particularly the balance of benefits and harms across subgroups. 14 21.2% 21 31.8% 31 47.0%
13c Indicate the strength of recommendations and the certainty of the supporting evidence. 55 83.3% 5 7.6% 6 9.1%
14a Describe whether values and preferences of the target population(s) were considered in the formulation of each recommendation. If yes, describe the approaches and methods used to elicit or identify these values and preferences. If values and preferences were not considered, provide an explanation. 32 48.5% 34 51.5% 0 0.0%
14b Describe whether cost and resource implications were considered in the formulation of recommendations. If yes, describe the specific approaches and methods used (such as cost-effectiveness analysis) and summarize the results. If resource issues were not considered, provide an explanation. 27 40.9% 39 59.1% 0 0.0%
14c Describe other factors taken into consideration when formulating the recommendations, such as equity, feasibility and acceptability. 34 51.5% 32 48.5% 0 0.0%
15 Describe the processes and approaches used by the guideline development group to make decisions, particularly the formulation of recommendations (such as how consensus was defined and achieved and whether voting was used). 37 56.1% 29 43.9% 0 0.0%
Review and quality assurance
16 Indicate whether the draft guideline underwent independent review and, if so, how this was executed and the comments considered and addressed. 26 39.4% 40 60.6% 0 0.0%
17 Indicate whether the guideline was subjected to a quality assurance process. If yes, describe the process. 3 4.5% 63 95.5% 0 0.0%
Funding, declaration and management of interest
18a Describe the specific sources of funding for all stages of guideline development. 27 40.9% 39 59.1% 0 0.0%
18b Describe the role of the funder(s) in the different stages of guideline development and in the dissemination and implementation of the recommendations. 1 1.5% 26 39.4% 39 59.1%
19a Describe what types of conflicts (financial and non-financial) were relevant to guideline development. 49 74.2% 17 25.8% 0 0.0%
19b Describe how conflicts of interest were evaluated and managed and how users of the guideline can access the declarations. 22 33.3% 44 66.7% 0 0.0%
Other information
20 Describe where the guideline, its appendices, and other related documents can be accessed. 27 40.9% 39 59.1% 0 0.0%
21 Describe the gaps in the evidence and/or provide suggestions for future research. 27 40.9% 39 59.1% 0 0.0%
22 Describe any limitations in the guideline development process (such as the development groups were not multidisciplinary or patients’ values and preferences were not sought), and indicate how these limitations might have affected the validity of the recommendations. 15 22.7% 51 77.3% 0 0.0%