Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II)
Authors' conclusion
Bariatric surgery guidelines effectively outlined their aim and presented recommendations. However, many did not adequately seek patient input, state search criteria, use evidence rating tools, and consider resource implications. Future guidelines should reference the AGREE II framework in study design.
Study context
- Population
- Bariatric and metabolic surgery clinical practice guidelines, MEDLINE and EMBASE, January 2010 to October 2022guidelines included
- Participants
- 26 participants
- Outcome
- Quality of guidelines for perioperative bariatric surgery care (AGREE II domain scores)
Methodological detailsAGREE II framework, Initial search yielded 1483 citations
- AGREE II framework
- Initial search yielded 1483 citations
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Overall median AGREE II domain scores
- Scope and purpose, median (IQR 57-94%)
- 87.5%
- Stakeholder involvement, median (IQR 40-64%)
- 49%
- Rigor of development, median (IQR 22-68%)
- 42.5%
- Clarity of presentation, median (IQR 81-90%)
- 85%
- Applicability, median (IQR 3-16%)
- 6%
- Editorial independence, median (IQR 48-67%)
- 50%
- Overall impressions, median (IQR 33-67%)
- 48%
- Guidelines with overall score >70%
- 6
Original publication
Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II). Int J Obes (Lond). Published 18 June 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →