Page 1

METODOLOGÍA DE TRABAJO PARA OBTENCIÓN DE CALIFICACION DE GUÍAS DE DIAGNÓSTICO Y MANEJO EN ASMA EN NIÑOS 1. Revisión sistemática de la literatura para obtención de las GPC existentes TOTAL GUÍAS: 64 (Al final de este documento toda la bibliografía actualizada)

a 2011.

2. Revisión de la literatura obtenida, de forma independiente por cada evaluador, para preselección de guías de práctica clínica teniendo en cuenta dos criterios: guías con nivel de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones y correspondientes a los últimos 6 años. TOTAL GPC PRESELECCIONADAS: POR EVALUADOR 1(JENNY): 16 GUIAS, POR EVALUADOR 2 ( RANNY): 26 GUIAS 3. Consenso informal de los evaluadores para selección de guías para aplicación de instrumento DELBI. TOTAL GUIAS SELECCIONADAS: 16. Se aclara que se incluyeron 2 consensos para aplicación del instrumento. 4. Registro y aplicación individual del instrumento DELBI a todas las guías seleccionadas : 8 dominios evaluados para cada guía, cada dominio con sus respectivos ítems. Se asignó un resultado a cada ítem (1: desacuerdo mayor, 2 desacuerdo, 3 acuerdo, 4 acuerdo mayor). TOTAL GUIAS CON APLICACIÓN DELBI: 16 5.

Calificación de las GPC: los resultados de los dos evaluadores se registraron en tablas colectivas específicas. Cada guía tiene 8 tablas de dominios en las que se registra la puntuación obtenida por cada evaluador, para cada ítem del dominio. Se aplica una fórmula específica para reunir los resultados de los dos evaluadores y expresar en porcentaje la puntuación.

6.

Siguiendo la metodología, de acuerdo con la puntuación obtenida , se considera la GPC como no recomendada, recomendada con modificaciones o condiciones o muy recomendada. Cumplimos hasta este paso. RESULTADOS: 1 GUIA MUY RECOMENDADA, 4 GUIAS CON RECOMENDACIÓN CON MODIFICACIONES O CONDICIONES. Se aclara que la construcción de la guía alemana fue una adaptación de la guía británica BTS, lo cual debe ser tomado en cuenta en el momento de decidir por consenso la GPC que se va adaptar.

7. El paso a seguir es socializar resultados con todo el GDG, de modo que se realice consenso informal para elegir la GPC que se desea adaptar, aplicar GLIA a cada una de las recomendaciones de la GPC que dé respuesta a las preguntas PECOT.

RESULTADOS APLICACIÓN DELBI- CONSOLIDADO DE EVALUADORES : 1 JENNY, 2 RANNIERY PUNTUACIÓN POR DOMINIOS Y CALIFICACION FINAL DE CADA GUIA


RESUMEN DE CALIFICACION DE GUIAS DIAGNOSTICO Y MANEJO EN ASMA NOMBRE DE LA GUIA BTS /SIGN

AÑO 2011

2009 2010

CALIFICACION Recomendada con condiciones o modificaciones No recomendada No recomendada Recomendada con condiciones o modificaciones Recomendada con condiciones o modificaciones No recomendada No recomendada

GINA menores de 5 años GINA mayores de 5 años NAEPP

2009 2010 2007

Manejo del asma en menores de 15 años NUEVA ZELANDA GEMA ESPAÑA Diagnosis and management of asthma. ICSI Council AUSTRALIA ACNP COLOMBIA Manejo asma menores 15 años CHILE Consenso PRACTALL Diretrizes Brasileiras manejo o asma MOH Clinical Guidelines Singapore

2005

2006 2010 2006

No recomendada No recomendada No recomendada

2008 2006 2008 2008 2005

No recomendada No recomendada Recomendada con condiciones o modificaciones Muy Recomendada No recomendada

NVL NASHIP ALEMANIA Guias manejo de asma países subdesarrollados Consenso sibilancias ERS

2008

No recomendado

A continuación se presentan resultados detallados de la evaluación por GPC:

GUIA : BTS / SIGN UPDATED 2011 EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous.

1

2.

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


16. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : BTS 2011 EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

3 X

4

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : BTS SIGN UPDATED 2011 EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described.

1

2

3 X

X X

4


Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : BTS 2011 EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed.

3 X X

X X X

4


33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

2

3

8

2R

3

2

3

8

Total

6

4

6

16

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (16-6)/(24-6)=10/18=0.55 x 100 (55%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

4

1

3

1

9

2R

4

1

4

3

12

Total

8

2

7

4

21

(21-8)/(32-8)=13/24=0.54x100 (54%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

26

2R

4

4

3

3

3

4

4

25


Total

8

8

6

6

7

8

8

51

(51-14)/(56-14)=37/42=0.88x100 (88%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

4

4

4

15

2R

4

4

4

4

16

Total

7

8

8

8

31

(31-8)/(32-8)=23/24=0.96 x 100 (96%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

3

3

4

10

2R

2

2

4

8

Total

5

5

8

18

(18-6)/(24-6)=12/18=0.66X100 (66%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

2

4

2R

2

2

4

Total

4

4

8


(8-4)/(16-4)=4/12=0.33 x 100 (33%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

4

2

4

3

3

3

19

2R

4

1

4

3

3

3

18

Total

8

3

8

6

6

6

37

(37-12)/(48-12)=25/36=0.69 x 100 (69%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

4

2

2

3

1

12

2R

3

2

2

3

1

11

Total

7

4

4

6

2

23

(23-10)/(40-10)=13/30=0.43 x100 (43%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA BTS 2011: RECOMENDADA CON CONDICIONES O MODIFICACIONES DOMINIO 1: 55% DOMINIO 2: 54% DOMINIO 3: 88% DOMINIO 4: 96% DOMINIO 5: 66% DOMINIO 6: 33% DOMINIO 7: 69%


DOMINIO 8: 43%

GUIA :GINA PARA MAYORES DE 5 AÑOS Y ADULTOS 2010. EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 18. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 19. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 20. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 21. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 22. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 23. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 24. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 25. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 26. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 27. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 28. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 29. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 30. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 31. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 32. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 33. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 34. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2 X

3

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


GUIA :GINA PARA MAYORES DE 5 AÑOS Y ADULTOS 2010. EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

3 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X

4

X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : GINA MAYORES DE 5 AÑOS Y ADULTOS 2010 - EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.he methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X

GUIA : GINA 2010. EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

3

4

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

2

3

4

9

2R

3

3

4

10

Total

5

6

8

19

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100


(19-6)/(24-6)=13/18=0.72 x 100 (72%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

4

1

4

1

10

2R

3

1

4

3

11

Total

7

2

8

4

21

(21-8)/(32-8)=13/24=0.54x100 (54%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

4

3

4

3

1

4

23

2R

4

3

3

4

3

1

4

22

Total

8

7

6

8

6

2

8

45

(45-14)/(56-14)=31/42=0.74x100 (74%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

4

3

3

13

2R

3

4

4

3

14

Total

6

8

7

6

27

(27-8)/(32-8)=19/24=0.79 x 100 (79%)


Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

2

3

2

7

2R

3

1

2

6

Total

5

4

4

13

(13-6)/(24-6)=7/18=0.38X100 (38%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

1

3

2R

1

1

2

Total

3

2

5

(5-4)/(16-4)=1/12=0.08 x 100 (8%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

3

3

3

16

2R

3

3

4

2

2

3

17

Total

6

4

7

5

5

6

33

(33-12)/(48-12)=21/36=0.58 x 100 (58%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes


Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

3

15

2R

3

2

3

4

1

13

Total

6

5

6

7

4

28

(28-10)/(40-10)=18/30=0.6 x100 (60%) CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA GINA MAYORES DE 5 AÑOS 2010: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 72% DOMINIO 2: 54% DOMINIO 3: 74% DOMINIO 4: 79% DOMINIO 5: 38% DOMINIO 6: 8% DOMINIO 7: 58% DOMINIO 8: 60%

GUIA : GINA MENORES DE 5 AÑOS 2009 EVALUADOR 1 ( J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 35. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 36. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 37. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 38. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 39. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 40. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 41. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 42. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 43. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 44. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X


45. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 46. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 47. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 48. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 49. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 50. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 51. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : GINA 2009. EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for. Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

2 X

3

X

X X X X X

4


GUIA : GINA 2009 EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : GINA 2009 EVLAUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2 X

3

4


29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

3

4

10

2R

3

2

4

9

Total

6

5

8

19

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (19-6)/(24-6)=13/18=0.72 x 100 (72%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

4

1

4

3

12

2R

3

1

4

2

10

Total

7

2

8

5

22

(22-8)/(32-8)=14/24=0.58x100 (58%)


Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

23

2R

4

3

3

4

3

2

4

23

Total

8

6

6

8

6

5

7

46

(46-14)/(56-14)=32/42=0.76x100 (76%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

3

4

13

2R

3

4

4

4

15

Total

6

7

7

8

28

(28-8)/(32-8)=20/24=0.83 x 100 (83%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

2

1

3

6

2R

1

1

2

4

Total

3

2

5

10

(10-6)/(24-6)=4/18=0.22X100 (22%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total


1J

2

1

3

2R

1

1

2

Total

3

2

5

(5-4)/(16-4)=1/12=0.08 x 100 (8%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

2

2

2

13

2R

3

2

4

2

2

3

16

Total

6

3

7

4

4

5

29

(29-12)/(48-12)=17/36=0.47 x 100 (47%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

2

3

3

1

12

2R

3

2

3

3

1

12

Total

6

4

6

6

2

24

(24-10)/(40-10)=14/30=0.46 x100 (46%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA GINA 2010: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 72% DOMINIO 2: 58 %


DOMINIO 3: 76 % DOMINIO 4: 83 % DOMINIO 5: 22 % DOMINIO 6: 8 % DOMINIO 7: 47 % DOMINIO 8: 46 %

GUIA : MANEJO DEL ASMA EN MENORES DE 15 AÑOS. GUIA NEOZELANDESA. 2005 EVALUADOR 1J Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X

GUIA : NUEVA ZELANDA 2005 EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

3

4

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : MANEJO DEL ASMA EN MENORES DE 15 AÑOS. GUIA NUEVA ZELANDA 2005 EVALUADOR2R Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X


Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : NUEVA ZELANDA 2005 . EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described. 29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for. Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos

1

2 X

3

4

X

X X X X X


Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

4

3

4

11

2R

4

3

3

10

Total

8

6

7

21

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (21-6)/(24-6)=15/18=0.83 x 100 (83%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

1

3

1

8

2R

2

1

3

2

8

Total

5

2

6

3

16

(16-8)/(32-8)=8/24=0.33x100 (33%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

4

3

2

3

1

3

20

2R

4

4

1

3

4

2

4

22

Total

8

8

4

5

7

3

7

42

(42-14)/(56-14)=28/42=0.66x100 (66%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación


Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ă?tem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

4

3

13

2R

3

3

4

3

13

Total

6

6

8

6

26

(26-8)/(32-8)=18/24=0.75 x 100 (75%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

2

1

3

6

2R

2

2

4

8

Total

4

3

7

14

(18-6)/(24-6)=14/18=0.77X100 (77%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

4

6

2R

2

4

6

Total

4

8

12

(12-4)/(16-4)=8/12=0.66 x 100 (66%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ă?tem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

2

3

2

2

3

15


2R

3

3

3

2

2

2

15

Total

6

5

6

4

4

5

30

(30-12)/(48-12)=18/36=0.50 x 100 (50%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

4

3

4

3

3

17

2R

3

4

3

3

3

16

Total

7

7

7

6

6

33

(33-10)/(40-10)=23/30=0.76 x100 (76%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA NUEVA ZELANDA 2011: RECOMENDADA CON CONDICIONES O MODIFICACIONES DOMINIO 1: 83% DOMINIO 2: 33% DOMINIO 3: 66% DOMINIO 4: 75% DOMINIO 5: 77% DOMINIO 6: 66% DOMINIO 7: 50% DOMINIO 8: 76%

GUIA : NAEPP 2007 EVALUADOR 1 (J)


Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : NAEPP 2007 (EVALUADOR 1) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described. 29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

1

2 X

3 X

4


30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree Los detalles metodológicos se exponen en www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdlin.htm

GUIA : NATIONAL ASTHMA EDUCATONAL PROGRAM NAEPP 2007 EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s).

1

2 X

3

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X

GUIA : NAEPP 2007. EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

3

4

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

4

3

4

11

2R

2

2

4

8

Total

6

5

8

19


(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (19-6)/(24-6)=13/18=0.72 x 100 (72%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

4

3

4

2

13

2R

3

1

3

2

9

Total

7

4

7

4

22

(22-8)/(32-8)=14/24=0.58x100 (58%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

23

2R

4

4

4

3

4

2

4

25

Total

8

7

7

7

7

5

7

48

(48-14)/(56-14)=34/42=0.81x100 (81%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

4

4

3

4

15

2R

4

4

3

3

14

Total

8

8

6

7

29

(29-8)/(32-8)=21/24=0.87 x 100 (87%)


Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

3

5

2R

2

4

3

9

Total

3

5

6

14

(14-6)/(24-6)=8/18=0.44X100 (44%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

4

7

2R

3

4

7

Total

6

8

14

(14-4)/(16-4)=10/12=0.83 x 100 (83%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ă?tem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

4

2

4

2

2

3

17

2R

3

2

2

2

2

3

14

Total

7

4

6

4

4

6

31

(31-12)/(48-12)=31/36=0.86 x 100 (86%)


Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

2

3

3

3

14

2R

4

2

3

3

1

13

Total

7

4

6

6

4

27

(27-10)/(40-10)=17/30=0.56 x100 (56%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA NAEPP 2007: RECOMENDADA CON CONDICIONES O MODIFICACIONES DOMINIO 1: 72% DOMINIO 2: 58% DOMINIO 3: 81% DOMINIO 4:87 % DOMINIO 5: 44% DOMINIO 6: 83% DOMINIO 7: 86% DOMINIO 8: 56% GUIA :GEMA 2009. EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the

1

2

3 X

X X X X X X X X X X

4


recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : GEMA 2009 EVLUADOR 1 (J) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

3 X

4

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree En El prólogo se cita que se elaboró un plan de divulgación o implementación de la Guía, por tal motivo se puntuó en acuerdo.


GUIA : GEMA 2009 EVALUADOR 2 ( R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2

3

4 X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : GEMA 2009 EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system

1

2

3

4


28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

2

3

8

2R

4

4

4

12

Total

7

6

7

20

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (20-6)/(24-6)=14/18=0.77 x 100 (77%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

3

3

1

10

2R

3

1

4

3

11

Total

6

4

7

4

21

(21-8)/(32-8)=13/24=0.54x100 (54%)


Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

20

2R

4

3

4

3

4

1

1

20

Total

7

6

7

6

7

4

3

40

(40-14)/(56-14)=26/42=0.62x100 (62%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

4

3

13

2R

4

4

4

4

16

Total

7

7

8

7

29

(29-8)/(32-8)=21/24=0.87 x 100 (87%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

3

1

5

2R

1

2

2

5

Total

2

5

3

10

(10-6)/(24-6)=4/18=0.22X100 (22%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial


Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

1

4

2R

3

3

6

Total

6

4

10

(10-4)/(16-4)=6/12=0.5 x 100 (50%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

2

3

3

3

3

17

2R

3

3

4

2

2

2

16

Total

6

5

7

5

5

5

33

(33-12)/(48-12)=21/36=0.58 x 100 (58%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

2

1

3

1

10

2R

3

3

2

4

1

13

Total

6

5

3

7

2

23

(23-10)/(40-10)=13/30=0.43 x100 (43%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA GEMA 2009: NO RECOMENDADA (PUNTUACIONES POR DOMINIO MENORES A 30%) DOMINIO 1: 77 %


DOMINIO 2: 54 % DOMINIO 3: 62 % DOMINIO 4: 87% DOMINIO 5: 22% DOMINIO 6: 50 % DOMINIO 7: 58 % DOMINIO 8: 43 %

GUIA : ICSI( INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT), JUNE 2010 . EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X

GUIA : ICSI, 2010 EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

3 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X

4

X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : Health Care Guideline. Diagnosis in the management of asthma. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement 2010- Evaluador 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6.The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X


12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : ICSI 2010 Evaluador 2 ( R ) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described. 29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for. Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

1

2

3 X

X

X X X X X

4


Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

4

3

4

11

2R

4

3

2

9

Total

8

6

6

20

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (20-6)/(24-6)=14/18=0.77 x 100 (77%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

1

4

1

9

2R

3

2

3

2

10

Total

6

3

7

3

19

(19-8)/(32-8)=11/24=0.46x100 (46%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

3

3

3

2

3

1

2

17

2R

4

4

3

2

2

1

2

18

Total

7

7

6

4

5

2

4

35

(35-14)/(56-14)=21/42=0.5x100 (50%)


Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

3

4

13

2R

3

4

4

4

15

Total

6

7

7

8

28

(28-8)/(32-8)=20/24=0.83 x 100 (83%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

3

5

2R

1

1

3

5

Total

2

2

6

10

(10-6)/(24-6)=4/18=0.22X100 (22%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

4

7

2R

3

3

6

Total

6

7

13

(13-4)/(16-4)=9/12=0.75 x 100 (75%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud


Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

2

3

3

15

2R

3

3

4

4

3

2

19

Total

6

4

7

6

6

5

34

(34-12)/(48-12)=22/36=0.61 x 100 (61%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

2

14

2R

3

2

2

3

2

12

Total

6

5

5

6

4

26

(26-10)/(40-10)=16/30=0.53 x100 (53%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA ICSI: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 77 % DOMINIO 2: 46 % DOMINIO 3: 50 % DOMINIO 4: 83 % DOMINIO 5: 22 % DOMINIO 6: 75 % DOMINIO 7: 61 % DOMINIO 8: 53 %

GUIA :COUNCIL AUSTRALIA 2006. EVALUADOR 1 (J)


Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2 X

3

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : COUNCIL 2006- EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described. 29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report).

1 X

2 X

3

4


Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : NATIONAL ASTHMA COUNCIL AUSTRALIA 2006 EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described.

1 X

2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic

X

2

3

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X

GUIA : COUNCIL 2006. EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

2

3

3

8

2R

1

1

3

5

Total

3

4

6

13

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (13-6)/(24-6)=7/18=0.38 x 100 (38%)


Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

2

3

1

9

2R

1

1

3

1

6

Total

4

3

6

2

15

(15-8)/(32-8)=7/24=0.29x100 (29%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

3

3

3

2

3

1

1

16

2R

2

3

3

2

2

1

1

14

Total

5

6

6

4

5

2

2

30

(30-14)/(56-14)=16/42=0.38x100 (38%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

4

4

3

14

2R

3

4

4

4

15

Total

6

8

8

7

29

(29-8)/(32-8)=21/24=0.87 x 100 (87%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total


1 J

2

2

1

5

2R

1

1

1

3

Total

3

3

2

8

(8-6)/(24-6)=2/18=0.11X100 (11%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

1

3

2R

1

1

2

Total

3

2

5

(5-4)/(16-4)=1/12=0.08 x 100 (8%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

4

4

3

1

1

2

15

2R

1

3

3

1

1

1

10

Total

5

7

6

2

2

3

25

(25-12)/(48-12)=13/36=0.36 x 100 (36%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

2

2

2

2

1

9


2R

2

1

1

1

1

6

Total

4

3

3

3

2

15

(15-10)/(40-10)=5/30=0.16 x100 (16%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA COUNCIL 2006:NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 38 % DOMINIO 2: 29 % DOMINIO 3: 38 % DOMINIO 4: 87 % DOMINIO 5: 11 % DOMINIO 6: 8 % DOMINIO 7: 36 % DOMINIO 8: 16 %

GUIA : DIAGNOSTICO Y TRATAMIENTO DEL ASMA EN EL MENOR DE 15 AÑOS CHILE 2006 EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X


14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : CHILE 2006 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : DIAGNOSTICO Y TRATAMIENTO EN EL MENOR DE 15 Aテ前S CHILE 2006. EVALUADOR 2 RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described.

1

2

3 X

4


2.

The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA :CHILE 2006 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report).

X

2

3

4


Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACIÓN GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

2

4

9

2R

3

1

3

7

Total

6

3

7

16

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (16-6)/(24-6)=10/18=0.55 x 100 (55%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

1

4

1

9

2R

2

1

3

1

7

Total

5

2

7

2

16

(16-8)/(32-8)=8/24=0.33x100 (33%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total


1 J

3

3

3

2

3

2

1

17

2R

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

8

Total

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

25

(25-14)/(56-14)=11/42=0.26x100 (26%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

12

2R

3

2

3

2

10

Total

6

5

6

5

22

(22-8)/(32-8)=14/24=0.58 x 100 (58%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

1

3

2R

1

1

1

3

Total

2

2

2

6

(6-6)/(24-6)=0/18=0 (0%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

1

3

2R

4

1

5


Total

6

2

8

(8-4)/(16-4)=4/12=0.33 x 100 (33%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

1

1

1

10

2R

3

1

3

1

1

1

10

Total

6

2

6

2

2

2

20

(20-12)/(48-12)=8/36=0.22 x 100 (22%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

3

2

3

1

12

2R

1

1

1

1

1

5

Total

4

4

3

4

2

16

(16-10)/(40-10)=6/30=0.20 x100 (20%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA CHILE 2006: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 55% DOMINIO 2: 33% DOMINIO 3: 26% DOMINIO 4: 58%


DOMINIO 5: 0% DOMINIO 6: 33% DOMINIO 7: 22% DOMINIO 8: 20% GUIA : PRACTALLI. 2008 EVALUADOR 1 (JJ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated.

1 X

2.

2

3

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X

GUIA :PRACTALL 2008 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree Es un consenso de expertos No se describen métodos de revisión de literatura (evidencia)

GUIA : PRACTALL 2008. EVALUADOR 2 (RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described.

1

2. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described.

2 X

X X

3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups.

X X

5. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.

X X X X X X X


13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : PRACTALL EVALUADOR 2 (RA) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION PRACTALL

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos

2

3

X X X

4


Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

1

2

3

6

2R

2

3

4

9

Total

3

5

7

15

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (15-6)/(24-6)=9/18=0.50 x 100 (50%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

1

4

1

9

2R

1

1

4

3

9

Total

4

2

8

4

18

(18-8)/(32-8)=10/24=0.41x100 (41%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

2

1

2

4

3

1

1

14

2R

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

10

Total

3

2

3

7

4

2

3

24

(24-14)/(56-14)=10/42=0.23x100 (23%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación


Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ă?tem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

12

2R

3

3

3

2

11

Total

6

6

6

5

23

(23-8)/(32-8)=15/24=0.62 x 100 (62%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

1

3

2R

1

1

1

3

Total

2

2

2

6

(6-6)/(24-6)=0/18=0 (0%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

4

6

2R

2

3

5

Total

4

7

11

(11-4)/(16-4)=7/12=0.58 x 100 (58%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ă?tem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

1

1

1

10

2R

3

3

4

1

1

1

13


Total

6

4

7

2

2

2

23

(23-12)/(48-12)=11/36=0.30 x 100 (30%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

2

1

1

2

1

7

2R

1

1

1

3

1

7

Total

3

2

2

5

2

14

(14-10)/(40-10)=4/30=0.13 x100 (13%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA PRACTALL 2008: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 50% DOMINIO 2: 413% DOMINIO 3: 23% DOMINIO 4: 62% DOMINIO 5: 0% DOMINIO 6: 58% DOMINIO 7: 30% DOMINIO 8: 13% GUIA : DIRETRIZES BASILERAS PARA O MANEJO DE ASMA. EVALUADOR 1 (JJ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups.

1 X

2 X X

X

3

4


5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14 A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : DIRETRIZES BRASILEIRAS. EVALUADOR 1 ( JJ) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence

2 X X

X X X X

3

4


34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : DIRETRIZES BRASILEIRAS EVALUADOR 2 ( RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the

1 X

2

3

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

4


guideline is presented.

GUIA : DIRETRIZES BRASILEIRAS. EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

1

2

2

5

2R

1

2

3

6

Total

2

4

5

11

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (11-6)/(24-6)=7/18=0.38 x 100 (38%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

1

1

2

1

5


2R

3

1

3

1

8

Total

4

2

5

2

13

(13-8)/(32-8)=5/24=0.20x100 (20%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

2R

2

1

1

3

2

1

1

11

Total

3

2

2

4

3

2

2

18

(18-14)/(56-14)=4/42=0.009x100 (9.52%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

2

3

1

9

2R

3

3

2

3

11

Total

6

5

5

4

20

(20-8)/(32-8)=12/24=0.50 x 100 (50%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

1

3

2R

1

1

1

3


Total

2

2

2

6

(6-6)/(24-6)=0/18=0 (0%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

1

3

2R

4

1

5

Total

6

2

8

(8-4)/(16-4)=4/12=0.33 x 100 (33%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud

Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

2

1

3

1

2

2

11

2R

3

1

3

1

1

1

10

Total

5

2

6

2

3

3

21

(21-12)/(48-12)=9/36=0.25 x 100 (25%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

1

1

1

1

1

5

2R

2

1

2

2

1

8

Total

3

2

3

3

2

13


(13-10)/(40-10)=3/30=0.10 x100 (10%)

CALIFICACIĂ“N FINAL GUIA DIRETRIZES BRASILEIRAS O MANEJO ASMA 2006:: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 38% DOMINIO 2: 20% DOMINIO 3: 9.5% DOMINIO 4: 50% DOMINIO 5: 0% DOMINIO 6: 33% DOMINIO 7: 25% DOMINIO 8: 10%

GUIA : MOH CLINIAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES 2008- SINGAPORE. EVALUADOR 1 (JJ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable.

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : SINGAPORE. EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : MOH CLINICAL GUIDELINES SINGAPORE. EVALUADOR 2 (RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4..The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional

1

2 X

3

4 X X

X


groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : SINGAPORE . EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described. 29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by

1

2 X

3

X

X X X X

4


systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

3

4

10

2R

2

4

4

10

Total

5

7

8

20

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (20-6)/(24-6)=14/18=0.77 x 100 (77%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

3

4

3

13

2R

3

1

4

3

11

Total

6

4

8

6

24

(24-8)/(32-8)=16/24=0.66x100 (66%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total


1 J

3

3

3

2

3

3

1

18

2R

3

2

4

3

4

1

2

19

Total

6

5

7

5

7

4

3

37

(37-14)/(56-14)=4/42=0.54X100 (54%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

4

3

4

3

14

2R

4

4

4

3

15

Total

8

7

8

6

29

(29-8)/(32-8)=12/24=0.87 x 100 (87%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

3

3

7

2R

2

3

3

8

Total

3

6

6

15

(15-6)/(24-6)=9/18=0.5 (50%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

1

4

2R

4

1

5


Total

7

2

9

9-4)/(16-4)=5/12=0.41 x 100 (41%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

3

3

1

1

1

12

2R

3

3

4

2

2

2

16

Total

6

6

7

3

3

3

28

(28-12)/(48-12)=9/36=0.44 x 100 (44%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

2

2

3

3

13

2R

3

2

2

3

2

12

Total

6

4

4

6

5

25

(25-10)/(40-10)=15/30=0.5 x100 (50%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL MOH CLINICAL GUIDELINES SINGAPORE:: RECOMENDADA CON CONDICIONES O MODIFICACIONES DOMINIO 1: 77% DOMINIO 2: 66% DOMINIO 3: 54%


DOMINIO 4: 87% DOMINIO 5: 50% DOMINIO 6: 41% DOMINIO 7: 44% DOMINIO 8: 50%

GUIA : NVL ( NASHIP) ALEMANIA. EVALUADOR 1 (JJ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 52. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 53. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 54. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 55. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 56. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 57. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 58. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 59. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 60. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 61. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 62. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 63. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 64. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 65. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 66. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 67. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 68. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X

GUIA : ALEMANIA EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

3 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

4 X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA :ALEMANA NATIONAL PROGRAME FOR DISEASE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES. EVALUADOR 2 (RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 69. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 70. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 71. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 72. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 73. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 74. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 75. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 76. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 77. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 78. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 79. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 80. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 81. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X


82. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 83. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 84. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 85. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : ALEMANA EVLAUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

2

3 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for. Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA

4 X

X X X X X


Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

4

3

4

11

2R

4

3

4

11

Total

16

6

8

22

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (22-6)/(24-6)=16/18=0.88 x 100 (88%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

3

3

4

3

13

2R

4

2

4

3

13

Total

7

5

8

6

26

(26-8)/(32-8)=18/24=0.75x100 (75%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

4

4

4

3

4

4

3

26

2R

4

4

4

3

4

3

3

25

Total

8

8

8

6

8

7

6

51

(51-14)/(56-14)=37/42=0.88X100 (88%)


Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

4

4

4

15

2R

3

4

4

4

15

Total

6

8

8

8

30

(30-8)/(32-8)=22/24=0.91 x 100 (91%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

4

6

2R

1

1

4

6

Total

2

2

8

12

(12-6)/(24-6)=6/18= 0.33 (33%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

4

3

7

2R

4

2

6

Total

8

5

13

(13-4)/(16-4)=9/12=0.75 x 100 (75%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud


Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

4

3

3

4

3

4

21

2R

3

3

4

3

3

4

20

Total

7

6

7

7

6

8

41

(41-12)/(48-12)=9/36=0.80 x 100 (80%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

3

3

4

3

16

2R

2

2

2

4

3

13

Total

5

5

5

8

6

29

(29-10)/(40-10)=19/30=0.63x100 (63%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL NVL NASHIP ALEMANA: MUY RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 88% DOMINIO 2: 75% DOMINIO 3: 88% DOMINIO 4: 91% DOMINIO 5: 33% DOMINIO 6: 75% DOMINIO 7: 80% DOMINIO 8: 63% GUIA : GUIA PAISES BAJO NIVEL SOCIECONOMICO /2005 (FRANCIA) MAYORES DE 5 AÑOS. EVALUADOR 1 (JJ)


Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : PAISES BAJOS/2005 (FRANCIA) MAYORES DE 5 AĂ‘OS Y ADULTOS. EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report).

X

2

3 X

4


Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : PAISES BAJO RECURSOS ESOCIECONOMICOS MAYORES 5 AÑOS 2005. EVALUADOR 2 (RA) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 86. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 87. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 88. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 89. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 90. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 91. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 92. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 93. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 94. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 95. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 96. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 97. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 98. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 99. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 100. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 101. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 102. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X

GUIA : PAISES BAJOS.EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4 X

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

4

3

4

11

2R

4

3

3

10

Total

8

6

7

21

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (21-6)/(24-6)=16/18=0.83 x 100 (83%)


Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

2

1

2

1

6

2R

1

3

3

3

10

Total

3

4

5

4

16

(16-8)/(32-8)=8/24=0.33x100 (33%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

1

1

1

4

1

3

1

12

2R

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

9

Total

2

2

2

7

2

4

2

21

(21-14)/(56-14)=7/42=0.16100 (16%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

4

2

2

3

11

2R

3

4

4

4

15

Total

7

6

6

7

26

(26-8)/(32-8)=18/24=0.75 x 100 (75%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general


Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

3

3

3

9

2R

3

3

3

9

Total

6

6

6

18

(18-6)/(24-6)=12/18= 0.66 (66%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

2

1

3

2R

4

1

5

Total

6

2

8

(8-4)/(16-4)=4/12=0.33 x 100 (33%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

1

3

3

3

1

14

2R

3

4

3

4

4

2

20

Total

6

5

6

7

7

3

34

(34-12)/(48-12)=9/36=0.61 x 100 (61%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

1

1

1

1

1

5


2R

1

1

1

1

1

5

Total

2

2

2

2

2

10

(10-10)/(40-10)=0/30=0 (0%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL PAISES BAJO NIVEL SOCIECONOMICO 2005: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 83% DOMINIO 2: 33% DOMINIO 3: 16% DOMINIO 4: 75% DOMINIO 5: 66% DOMINIO 6: 33% DOMINIO 7: 61% DOMINIO 8: 0%

GUIA :SIBILANCIAS EN PREESCOLARES ERS2008 EVALUADOR 1 J Domain 1. Scope and purpose 103. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 104. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 105. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 106. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 107. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 108. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 109. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 110. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 111. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 112. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 113. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 114. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 115. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.

1

2

3 X

4

X X X X X X X X X X X X


116. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 117. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 118. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 119. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : SIBILANCIAS EN PREESCOLARES ERS 2008 EVALUADOR 1 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

2

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

3

4

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : ACNP 2010 . EVALUADOR 1 (J) Domain 1. Scope and purpose

1

2

3

4


120. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described.

X

121. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 122. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 123. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 124. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 125. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 126. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 127. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 128. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 129. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 130. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 131. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 132. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 133. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 134. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 135. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 136. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : ACNP 2010. EVALUADOR 1(J) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report).

X

2

3

4


Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

GUIA : Guía practica clínica en el tratamiento del asma en el niño ACNP 2010. EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 1. Scope and purpose 1.The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 2.The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 3.The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 4.The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 5.The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 7.The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 8.Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 9.The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 10.The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 11.Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 12.There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 13.The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 15.The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 16.The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented. 17.Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic

1 X

2

3

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

4


and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X

GUIA : ACNP 2010. EVALUADOR 2 (R ) Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 X

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines

X

30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

2

3

4

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree

CALIFICACION GUIA Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Total

1 J

3

3

4

10

2R

1

2

2

5

Total

4

5

6

15

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (15-6)/(24-6)=9/18=0.5 x 100 (50%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés


Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

2

1

4

1

8

2R

1

1

2

2

6

Total

3

2

6

3

14

(14-8)/(32-8)=6/24=0.25x100 (25%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

3

3

3

2

3

1

1

16

2R

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

12

Total

4

4

6

4

5

3

2

28

(28-14)/(56-14)=14/42=0.33x100 (33%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ítem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

3

4

13

2R

3

2

3

3

11

Total

6

5

6

7

24

(31-8)/(32-8)=23/24=0.96 x 100 (96%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

1

3


2R

1

1

1

3

Total

2

2

2

6

(6-6)/(24-6)=O/18=0X100 (0%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

1

4

2R

3

1

4

Total

6

2

8

(8-4)/(16-4)=4/12=0.33 x 100 (33%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ítem 27

Item28

Item29

Total

1 J

3

3

3

2

1

1

13

2R

1

2

3

2

1

1

10

Total

4

5

6

4

2

2

23

(23-12)/(48-12)=23/36=0.64 x 100 (64%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

3

2

3

3

1

12

2R

3

1

1

1

1

7

Total

6

3

4

4

2

19


(19-10)/(40-10)=9/30=0.3 x100 (3O%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA ACNP 2010: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 50% DOMINIO 2: 25% DOMINIO 3: 33 % DOMINIO 4: 96 % DOMINIO 5: 0 % DOMINIO 6: 33% DOMINIO 7: 64% DOMINIO 8: 30 %

GUIA : TRATAMIENTO DE SIBILANCIA MENORES DE 5 AÑOS ERS 2008 EVALUADOR 2 Domain 1. Scope and purpose 137. The overall objective of the guideline is specifically described. 138. The clinical questions / problems addressed by the guideline are specifically described. 139. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described. Domain 2. Stakeholder involvement 140. The guideline development group includes members from all relevant professional groups. 141. The patient’s views and preferences have been sought. 142. The target users of the guideline are clearly described. 143. The guideline has been piloted among target group members. Domain 3. Methodological rigor of development 144. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. 145. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. 146. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. 147. Health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. 148. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. 149. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. 150. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. Domain 4. Clarity and presentation 151. The recommendations of the guideline are specific and unambiguous. 152. The different options for the management of the condition are clearly presented.

1

2

3

4 X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


153. Key recommendations of the guideline are easily identifiable. 18. The guideline is supported with tools and / or materials for application. Domain 5. General applicability 19. The potential organizational barriers in applying the recommendations have been discussed. 20. The potential cost implications of applying the recommendations of the guideline have been considered. 21. The guidelines presents key review criteria for monitoring and / or audit purposes Domain 6: Editorial independence 22. The guideline is editorially independent of the funding organization(s). 23. Conflicts of interest of the members of the guideline development group have been recorded. Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 24. There are recommendations for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative measures in different areas of care. 25. There is information as to which measures seem to be unsuitable, redundant or outdated. 26. The clinical information of the guideline is organized in such a way as to ensure that the process of clinical decision-making is systematically presented and easily understandable. 27. A strategy / concept for the easy accessibility and dissemination of the guideline is presented.

X X X X X X X X X X X

GUIA : SIBILANCIAS ERSPREESCOLARES. EVALUADOR 2 Domain 7: Applicability to the country healthcare system 28. A concept for implementing the guideline is described.

1 XX

2

29. The guideline is supplemented by a description of the methods used (guideline report). Domain 8. Methodological rigour of development when using existing guidelines 30. Systematic methods were used to search for existing guidelines. 31. The criteria for selecting guidelines as a source of evidence (so-called source guidelines) are transparently and explicitly described. 32. The quality of the source guidelines was reviewed. 33. The evidence base of the source guidelines was complemented by systematic update searches of primary evidence 34. All modifications to the recommendations of the source guidelines are clearly specified and accounted for.

X

X X X X X

Rating 1. Strongly disagree Rating 4. Strongly agree CALIFICACION GUIA

Dominio 1: Alcance y objetivos Evaluador

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

3

Total

4


1 J

3

3

4

10

2R

4

3

4

11

Total

7

6

8

21

(Puntaje obtenido – puntaje mínimo posible)/(Puntaje máximo posible – puntaje mínimo posible) x 100 (21-6)/(24-6)=15/18=0.83 x 100 (83%)

Dominio 2: Participación de grupos de interés Evaluador

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Ítem 7

Total

1 J

2

1

3

1

7

2R

1

1

4

2

8

Total

3

2

7

3

15

(15-8)/(32-8)=7/24=0.29x100 (29%)

Dominio 3: Rigor metodológico en la elaboración Evaluador

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Ítem 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Total

1 J

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

17

2R

3

4

4

4

4

2

1

22

Total

6

7

7

7

7

3

2

39

(39-14)/(56-14)=28/42=0.93x100 (93%)

Dominio 4: Claridad y Presentación


Evaluador

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Ă?tem 18

Total

1 J

3

3

2

2

10

2R

3

3

4

2

12

Total

6

6

6

4

22

(22-8)/(32-8)=18/24=0.92 x 100 (92%)

Dominio 5: Aplicabilidad general Evaluador

Item 19

Item 20

Item 21

Total

1 J

1

1

1

3

2R

1

1

1

3

Total

2

2

2

6

(6-6)/(24-6)=0/18=0X100 (0%)

Dominio 6: Independencia editorial Evaluador

Item 22

Item 23

Total

1J

3

1

4

2R

3

2

5

Total

6

3

9

(9-4)/(16-4)=5/12=0.42 x 100 (42%)

Dominio 7: Aplicabilidad al sistema de salud Evaluador

Item 24

Item 25

Item 26

Ă?tem 27

Item28

Item29

Total


1 J

3

2

3

1

1

3

13

2R

3

2

3

1

1

3

13

Total

6

4

6

2

2

6

26

(36-12)/(48-12)=14/36=0.38 x 100 (38%)

Dominio 8: Rigor metodológico cuando se utilizan GPC existentes Evaluador

Item 30

Item 31

Item 32

Ítem 33

Item34

Total

1 J

2

2

2

2

1

9

2R

1

1

1

1

1

5

Total

3

3

3

3

2

14

(14-10)/(40-10)=4/30=0.13 x100 (13%)

CALIFICACIÓN FINAL GUIA SIBILANCIAS ERS 2008: NO RECOMENDADA DOMINIO 1: 83% DOMINIO 2: 29% DOMINIO 3: 93% DOMINIO 4: 92% DOMINIO 5: 0% DOMINIO 6: 42% DOMINIO 7: 38% DOMINIO 8: 13%


GUIAS DE PRÁCTICA CLÍNICA A 2011 Guía Clínica. Diagnostico y tratamiento del asma en el menor de 15 años GOBIERNO DE CHILE. MINISTERIO DE SALUD. Junio 2006 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: SIGN Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre Asma. OSAKIDETZA SERVICIO VASCO DE SALUD. GOBIERNO VASCO Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: SIGN Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOR ASTHMA (GINA) 2009 update. Niveles de evidencia (A-D). No fuerza de recomendaciones. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention 5 years and over 2010. GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOR ASTHMA (GINA) 2010. Niveles de evidencia (A-D) No fuerza de recomendaciones. National Disease Management Guideline. NVL Asthma Guideline Report GERMAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (GMA). ASSOCIATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL SOCIETIES (AWMF). NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY HEALTH INSURANCE PHYSICIANS (NASHIP). Agosto 2005. Niveles de evidencia SIGN; fuerza de recomendaciones GRADE


British Guideline on the management of asthma. A national clinical guideline. BRITISH THORACIC SOCIETY. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Junio 2009 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: SIGN Recommandations pour la prise en charge des maladies obstructive des respiratoires de l´enfant (SGPP/PIA-CH 2009). Paediatrica 2009; 20: 41-48 Niveles de evidencia GRADE; no fuerza de recomendaciones Diagnóstico y tratamiento del asma aguda y crónica SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE PATOLOGÍA RESPIRATORIA (SEPAR) No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: Expert Panel Report 3 NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE. NATIONAL ASTHMA EDUCATION AND PREVENTION PROGRAM (NAEPP) Año 2007. Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). Fuerza de recomendaciones mediante consenso de expertos. Asthma Management Handbook 2006 NATIONAL ASTHMA COUNCIL AUSTRALIA Año 2006 NIveles de evidencia: National Health and Medical Research Council. No fuerza de recomendaciones Promoting asthma control in children REGISTERED NURSES´ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO (RNAO) - NATIONAL GUIDELINE CLEARINGHOUSE Año 2008 Niveles de evidencia: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) modificado. No fuerza de recomendaciones. Pediatric asthma clinical practice guidelines. Kaiser Permanente Care Management Institute NATIONAL GUIDELINE CLEARINGHOUSE Año 2008 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, I). Fuerza de recomendaciones de acuerdo a evidencia. Management of asthma in children 0 to 4 years MICHIGAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONSORTIUM - NATIONAL GUIDELINE CLEARINGHOUSE Julio 2008 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). Fuerza de recomendaciones mediante consenso de expertos. Management of asthma in children 5 to 11 years MICHIGAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONSORTIUM - NATIONAL GUIDELINE CLEARINGHOUSE Julio 2008 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). Fuerza de recomendaciones mediante consenso de expertos. Management of asthma in youth 12 years and older and adults


MICHIGAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONSORTIUM - NATIONAL GUIDELINE CLEARINGHOUSE Julio 2008 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). Fuerza de recomendaciones mediante consenso de expertos. Asma Infantil: Guíes de práctica clínica INSTITUT CATALA DE LA SALUT. DEPARTAMENT DE SALUT Octubre 2008 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones SIGN Leitlinien-Clearingbericht “Asthma bronchiale” ÄRZTLICHE ZENTRALSTELLE QUALITÄTSSICHERUNG Año 2001 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), SIGN, y U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Asthma: management, education and research NHRMC NATIONAL HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKING PARTY ON ASTHMA Diciembre 1995 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones. Diagnóstico e Tratamento da Asma Brônquica SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE PNEUMOLOGIA E TISIOLOGIA. SOCIEDADE BRASILERA DE ALERGIA E IMUNOPATOLOGIA. SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE PEDIATRIA Agosto 2001 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). No fuerza de recomendaciones. Guía española para manejo del asma GUIA ESPAÑOLA PARA EL MANEJO DEL ASMA (GEMA) Año 2009 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: GRADE Diagnosis and treatment of asthma in childhood: a PRACTALL consensus report. Allergy 2008; 63: 5-34 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones. Management of Asthma MOH CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES. MINISTRY OF HEALTH, SINGAPORE Enero 2008 Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones SIGN Canadian Asthma Consensus report CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL (CMAJ). JOURNAL DE L ´ASSOCIATION MÉDICALE CANADIENNE (JAMC) Año 1999 Niveles de evidencia (I-V). No fuerza de recomendaciones Summary of recommendations from the Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines, 2003 and Canadian Pediatric Asthma Consensus Guidelines, 2003 CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL (CMAJ). JOURNAL DE L ´ASSOCIATION MÉDICALE CANADIENNE (JAMC) CMAJ 2005; 173 (6 suppl); S1S56 Niveles de evidencia (I-V). No fuerza de recomendaciones


Guía ALERTA. América Latina y España: recomendaciones para la prevención y el tratamiento de la exacerbación asmática. ASOCIACION LATINOAMERICANA DEL TORAX (ALAT). SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE NEUMOLOGIA Y CIRUGIA TORACICA (SEPAR) Año 2008 Niveles de evidencia (A-D). Fuerza de recomendaciones mediante consenso de expertos. Asma infantil. Guías para su diagnóstico y Tratamiento COLEGIO MEXICANO DE ALERGIA, ASMA E INMUNOLOGÍA PEDIÁTRICA (COMAAIPE) No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guía de práctica clínica en el tratamiento del niño con asma. ASOCIACION COLOMBIANA DE NEUMOLOGIA PEDIATRICA (ACNP). Guías de Práctica Clínica 2010. Niveles de evidencia (A-D .Fuerza de recomendaciones (1,2). Leitlinie zur Behandlung des Asthma bronchiale bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 2008; 156: 579-584 Niveles de evidencia WHO; no fuerza de recomendaciones Chronic Airways Diseases. A Guide for Primary Care Physicians. INTERNATIONAL PRIMARY CARE AIRWAYS GROUP (IPAG). Diciembre 2007 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones. International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) Guidelines: Diagnosis of respiratory diseases in primary care. Primary Care Respiratory Journal 2006; 15: 20-34 Niveles de evidencia Three Star System of the Royal College of General Practitioners; no fuerza de recomendaciones Practice parameter: The office management of acute exacerbations of asthma in children. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - Provisional Committee on Quality Improvement. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 119-126 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomen Consenso sobre el tratamiento del asma infantil SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE NEUMOLOGIA PEDIATRICA. SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE INMUNOLOGIA Y ALERGIA PEDIATRICA Enero 2006 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). No fuerza de recomendaciones Protocolo para manejo ambulatorio de asma en personas entre 6 meses y 18 años de edad SERIE APS PCBE No. 1. VERSIÓN 1 Año 2007 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Consenso de Asma Bronquial. SOCIEDAD ARGENTINA DE PEDIATRIA Arch Argent Pediatr 2008; 106: 61-68


No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Primer Consenso Uruguayo para el Manejo del Asma Rev Med Uruguay 2002; 18: 122-147 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Primera Guía de Consenso para el diagnóstico, prevención y terapéutica del asma infantil en Venezuela SOCIEDAD VENEZOLANA DE PUERICULTURA Y PEDIATRIA. SOCIEDAD VENEZOLANA DE NEUMOLOGIA Y CIRUGIA DE TORAX. SOCIEDAD VENEZOLANA DE ASMA, ALERGIA E INMUNOLOGIA. Archivos Venezolanos de Puericultura y Pediatría 2005; 68: 36-43 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Consenso de asma, neumología y alergia pediátrica (Borrador) SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE NEUMOLOGÍA PEDIÁTRICA (SENP). SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE INMUNOLOGÍA CLÍNICA Y ALERGIA PEDIÁTRICA (SEICAP). Allergol et Immunopathol 2004; 32: 104-118 Niveles de evidencia (A-D, Jadad y cols. 2000). No fuerza de recomendaciones Canadian consensus on the treatment of asthma in children Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145: 1449-1455 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Diagnostico y Manejo del asma en pediatría SOCIEDAD BOLIVIANA DE PEDIATRÍA Año 1998 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones IV Diretrizes Brasileiras para o Manejo da Asma. J Bras Pneumol 2006; 32 (Supl 7): S447-S474 No tiene niveles de evidencia; recomendaciones U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). New Japanese pediatric guidelines for the treatment and management of bronchial asthma. Pediatrics International 2007; 49: 1023-1031. No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of difficult-to-control asthma. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPANISH SOCIETY OF PULMONOLOGY AND THORACIC SURGERY (SEPAR). Arch Bronconeumol 2005; 41: 513-523. No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guideline for acute asthma in adults and children. TOWARD OPTIMIZED PRACTICE (TOP) PROGRAM. ALBERTA CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES PROGRAM. 2009 Update No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Asthma - Diagnosis and Management. Guidelines & Protocols. Advisory Comittee.


BRITISH COLUMBIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. BRITISH COLUMBIA. MINISTERY OF HEALTH. Mayo 2005 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Management of chronic asthma. Summary AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. Number 44. Septiembre 2001. No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Health Care Guideline. Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT (ICSI). June 2010. Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: ICSI Evidence Grading System Environmental Management of Pediatric Asthma. Guidelines for Health Care Providers. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION. Agosto 2005. No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Clinical Practice Guidelines. Medical follow-up of patients with asthma – adults and adolescentes. FRECH NATIONAL AGENCY FOR ACCREDITATION AND EVALUATION IN HEALTHCARE (ANAES). Septiembre 2004. Niveles de evidencia y fuerza de recomendaciones: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Managing asthma exacerbations in the emergency department: summary of the national asthma education and prevention program expert panel report 3 Guidelines for the management of asthma exacerbations. The Journal of Emergency Medicine 2009; 37 (Supl 2): S6-S17. No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones El asma en atención primaria. Guía de Práctica Clínica basada en la evidencia SOCIEDAD ANDALUZA DE MEDICINA FAMILIAR Y COMUNITARIA (SAMFYC) Niveles de evidencia (A-C) No fuerza de recomendaciones. Asma infantil. Guía para la atención de niños y adolescentes con asma JUNTA DE CASTILLA Y LEON. SACYL No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guía Rápida para el tratamiento de fondo del asma en el niño y adolescente. GRUPO DE VIAS RESPIRATORIAS DE LA ASOCIACION ESPAÑOLA DE PEDIATRIA DE ATENCION PRIMARIA (AEPap) Octubre 2006 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guía Clínica de Manejo del Asma Bronquial en niños y adolescentes de Cantabria en atención primaria CONSEJERIA DE SANIDAD Y SERVICIOS SOCIALES. SERVICIO CANTABRO DE SALUD. GOBIERNO DE CANTABRIA Enero 2006


No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Guía de buena práctica clínica en asma infantil. ORGANIZACIÓN MEDICA COLEGIAL DE ESPAÑA. MINISTERIO DE SALUD Y CONSUMO Niveles de evidencia (A-C) No fuerza de recomendaciones Guidelines for management of asthma at primary and secondary levels of health care in India WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2005; 47: 309-343 Niveles de evidencia (nivel 1-5). No fuerza de recomendaciones Consensus statement on the management of paediatric asthma. Allergol Immunopathol 2008; 36: 31-52 Niveles de evidencia (A-D). No fuerza de recomendaciones. Révision de la troisième conférence de consensus en réanimation et médecine d’Urgence de 1988 : prise en charge des crises d’asthme aiguës graves de l’adulte et de l’enfant (à l’exclusion du nourrisson) Rev Mal Respir 2002; 19: 658-665 Niveles de evidencia (A-D). Fuerza de recomendaciones (1-3) Management of asthma: a consensus statement Archives of Disease in Childhood 1989; 64: 1065-1079 No tiene niveles de evidencia ni fuerza de recomendaciones Recommandations de la SPLF sur Asthme et Allergie SOCIÉTÉ DE PNEUMOLOGIE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE SUR ASTHME ET ALLERGIE Año 2007 No niveles de evidencia. Fuerza de recomendaciones (A-C) Asthme de l’enfant de moins de 36 mois: diagnostic, prise en charge et traitement en dehors des épisodes aigus SOCIETÉ PÉDIATRIQUE DE PNEUMOLOGIE & ALLERGOLOGIE Marzo 2009 Nivel de evidencia (1-4). Fuerza recomendaciones (A-C). Management of asthma: a guide to the essentials of good clinical practice (Títuo original). Guía para el Manejo del Asma en países subdesarrollados. Medidas estandarizadas esenciales. Segunda edición, 2005. UNION INTERNACIONAL CONTRA LA TUBERCULOSIS Y LAS ENFERMEDADES RESPIRATORIAS. Nadia Ait-Khaled, Donald A Enarson. Guidance on the use of inhaler systems (devices) in children under the age of 5 years with chronic asthma. August 2003.NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE NHS. Technology Appraisal Guidance- No.10. Inhaled Corticosteroids for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years. November 2007.NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 131.


Management of asthma in children aged 1- 15 years 2005. Best practice Evidence Based guideline. Paediatric Society of New Zealand. Niveles de evidencia 1-4, Grados de recomendacion A-D (SIGN)

Definition , assessment and treatment of wheezing disorders in preschool children: an evidence – based approach.2008 ERS TASK FORCE. Evaluación GRADE.


CALIFICACION_DE_GUIAS__POR_DELBI_-_CONSOLIDADO_FINAL_31_DE_MAYO_DE_2011[1]  

2. Revisión de la literatura obtenida, de forma independiente por cada evaluador, para preselección de guías de práctica clínica teniendo en...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you