Table 1 Quality appraisal of existing guidelines according to Agree II

 1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described.

5

7

7

7

7

 2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described.

4

2

6

5

4

 3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described.

3

3

6

7

7

 Subtotal

12

12

19

19

18

 4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups.

4

2

6

6

6

 5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought.

2

1

4

3

3

 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined.

2

4

5

5

4

 Subtotal

8

7

15

14

13

 7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.

1

1

5

1

1

 8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described.

1

1

1

1

1

 9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described.

1

1

2

1

1

 10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.

1

1

1

1

1

 11. The health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations.

3

2

2

2

2

 12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.

2

3

5

3

3

 13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.

5

1

6

3

2

 14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.

1

1

1

1

1

 Subtotal

15

11

23

13

12

 15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous.

6

6

6

5

7

 16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented.

4

3

3

4

4

 17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable.

5

3

3

5

6

 18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application.

1

1

1

1

1

 Subtotal

16

13

13

15

18

 19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice.

3

5

6

3

4

 20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered.

1

1

1

1

1

 21. The guideline presents monitoring and/ or auditing criteria.

1

1

1

1

1

 Subtotal

5

7

8

5

6

 22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline.

3

1

1

1

1

 23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed.

2

1

1

1

1

 Subtotal

5

2

2

2

2

 - Rate the overall quality of this guideline: 1 (lowest possible quality) – 7 (highest possible quality)

3

4

5

4

5

 - I would recommend this guideline for use

  ◦ Yes

  ◦ Yes, with modifications

+

+

+

+

+

  ◦ No

Notes

Implemen-tation schedule (+)

Overview by behaviour and scores of alternatives

Legislation of UK (−)

Examples for clarification (+)

Employers involved (+)

Ethical aspects (+)

Belgian context flowchart

Total

61

52

80

68

69