Users Online: 158
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-32

Quality assessment of the Saudi initiative for asthma guideline


1 Department of Clinical Sciences-Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al Majma'ah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Clinical Sciences-Medicine, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al Majma'ah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Clinical Sciences-Paediatric Pulmonology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al Majma'ah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abdullah Al-Olayan
Department of Clinical Sciences-Paediatric Pulmonology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al Majma'ah 11952
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijas.ijas_10_18

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the quality of Saudi initiative for asthma (SINA) guideline using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Design: This study design was methodological evaluation of SINA Guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Place and Duration of Study: This study was conducted from September to December 2017 in the college of medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia. Methods: The appraisers assessed the quality of SINA guideline. A descriptive statistical analysis through the calculation of the total, standardized-score value by each reviewer, and the value per domain were performed. Six reviewers evaluated the guideline independently; four of them were family physicians, one was Internist, and the other was pediatric pulmonologist. Results: We found that clarity of presentation for SINA scored the best (64%). The guideline scored average on the domain related to “scope and purpose” and “stakeholder involvement.” The lowest score was in “applicability” and “editorial independence” domain (25%), respectively. However, the overall quality of the SINA guideline was low, and the reviewer suggested the use of the current guideline after modification. Conclusion: The results of our studies emphasize the need for addressing the domains with low scores including rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. However, the reviewers recommend using SINA guideline for asthma management with taking into consideration the modifications that were noted during the appraisal. We also recommend using AGREE II tool to develop and improve the next version of SINA guideline.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed174    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded35    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal