Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
A variety of rating instruments that evaluate the quality of practice guidelines have been published. Application of these instruments can be difficult and time-consuming.In a literature review, we identified two evaluation instruments that are comprehensive, have clearly defined constructs, and have undergone validation/testing-the Guidelines Quality Assessment Questionnaire (GQAQ) and the Appraisal Instrument for Clinical Guidelines (AICG). Overall, the AICG is more comprehensive. The AICG addresses the implementability of a guideline, which is not evaluated by the GQAQ. However, the GQAQ is more amenable to computerization.GEM-Q is a Guideline Elements Model (GEM)-derived application intended to facilitate automated evaluation of guideline quality using one of the published instruments. To develop GEM-Q, various items in the GQAQ were mapped to corresponding elements in the GEM hierarchy and a customized XSL stylesheet was designed based on this mapping. GEM-Q selectively extracts text components of the guideline relevant to quality evaluation and displays the results in HTML format. GEM-Q was applied to a set of six guidelines to test its reliability. It ranked two guidelines as of "good" quality, two as "intermediate", and two as "poor". In all six instances, GEM-Q ranked guidelines in the same order of quality as the experts who validated the GQAQ,This work demonstrates the feasibility of developing an application to facilitate automated guideline quality evaluation. |
Year | Venue | Keywords |
|---|---|---|
2001 | MEDINFO 2001: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10TH WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL INFORMATICS, PTS 1 AND 2 | practice guideline, evaluation, rating instrument, quality control |
Field | DocType | Volume |
Ranking,Family medicine,Knowledge management,XSL,Style sheet,Hierarchy,Guideline,Medicine,Process management | Conference | 84 |
Issue | ISSN | Citations |
Pt 2 | 0926-9630 | 3 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.78 | 1 | 3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abha Agrawal | 1 | 38 | 5.11 |
| Richard N. Shiffman | 2 | 124 | 26.09 |
| MCIS | 3 | 3 | 0.78 |