Pasquale Parisi, Nicola Vanacore, Vincenzo Belcastro, Marco Carotenuto, Ennio Del Giudice, Rosanna Mariani, Laura Papetti, Piero Pavone, Salvatore Savasta, Pasquale Striano, Irene Toldo, Elisabetta Tozzi, Alberto Verrotti, Umberto Raucci
Abstract
The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool is a validated questionnaire used to assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines (CGs). We used the AGREE II tool to assess the development process, the methodological quality, and the quality of reporting of available pediatric CGs for the management of headache in children. We also studied the variability in responses related to the characteristics of eleven Italian neuropediatric centers, showing similarities and differences in the main recommendations reported in CGs.
A systematic literature search was conducted from January 2002 to June 2013 on Mediline, the Cochrane database, the National Guideline Clearinghouse website and the NHS evidence search tool, using the following terms: headache, cephalalgia, guidelines and children (MESH or text words). Six CGs providing information on the diagnosis and management of headache and specific recommendations for children were selected. Eleven neuropediatric centers assessed the overall quality and the appropriateness of all available CGs using of the AGREE II instrument.
Six CGs meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and assessed by 11 reviewers. Our study showed that the NICE CGs was "strongly recommended" while the French and Danish CGs were mainly "not recommended". The comparison between the overall quality score of the French CGs and the NICE CGs was statistically significant (6.54 ± 0.69 vs. 4.18 ± 1.08; p =0.001). The correlation analysis between quality domain score and guideline publication date showed a statistically significant association only for the "editorial independence" domain (r = 0.842 p = 0.035). The intra-class coefficients showed that the 11 reviewers had the highest agreement for the Lewis CGs (r = 0.857), and the lowest one for the NICE CGs (r = 0.656). Statistical analyses showed that professionals from outpatient services dedicated pediatric headache assigned a higher overall quality score to the NICE CGs as compared to professionals from non-outpatient services (6.86 ± 0.38 vs. 6.0 ± 0.82; p = 0.038).
CGs resulted definitely of low-moderate quality and non "homogeneous". Further major efforts are needed to update the existing CGs according to the principles of evidence based medicine.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
4%
Neuroscience
2
3%
Other
4
5%
Unknown
21
26%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,627,240
of 23,848,132 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#861
of 1,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,739
of 240,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,848,132 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
