Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality assessment of osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines for physical activity and safe movement: an AGREE II appraisal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Many osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines are published, and the extent to which physical activity and safe movement is addressed varies. To better inform clinical decision-making, a quality assessment and structured analysis of recommendations was undertaken. Guideline quality varied substantially, and improvement is necessary in physical activity and safe movement recommendations.

Purpose

The purpose of the present study is to survey available osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) containing physical activity and safe movement recommendations in order to assess the methodological quality with which they were developed. An analysis of the various physical activity and safe movement recommendations was conducted to determine variability between CPGs.

Methods

An online literature search revealed 19 CPGs meeting our inclusion criteria. Three independent scorers evaluated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II (AGREE II) instrument. Two separate individuals used a standard table to extract relevant recommendations.

Results

Intra-reviewer AGREE II score agreement ranged from fair to good (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.34 to 0.65). The quality of the 19 included CPGs was variable (AGREE sub-scores: 14 to 100 %). CPGs scored higher in the “scope and purpose” and “clarity of presentation” domains. They scored the lowest in “applicability” and “editorial independence.” Four CPGs were classified as high quality, ten average quality, and five low quality. Most CPGs recommended weight-bearing, muscle-strengthening, and resistance exercises. Information on exercise dosage, progression, and contraindications was often absent. Immobility and movements involving spinal flexion and/or torsion were discouraged.

Conclusions

There were several high-quality CPGs; however, variability in quality and lack of specific parameters for implementation necessitates caution and critical examination by readers. CPG development groups should pay special attention to the clinical applicability of their CPGs as well as fully disclosing conflicts of interest. CPGs were in general an agreement regarding safe physical activity and safe movement recommendations. However, recommendations were often vague and the more specific recommendations were inconsistent between CPGs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A Report of a WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. World Heal Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129. doi:10.1007/BF01622200

    Google Scholar 

  2. Genant H, Cooper C, Poor G, Reid I (1999) Interim Report and Recommendations of the World Health Organization Task-Force for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 259–264. doi: 10.1007/s001980050224

  3. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2004) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:897–902. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1627-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McClung M, Geusens P, Miller P et al (2001) Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. N Engl J Med 344:333–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCloskey EV, Beneton M, Charlesworth D et al (2007) Clodronate reduces the incidence of fractures in community-dwelling elderly women unselected for osteoporosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. J Bone Miner Res 22:135–141. doi:10.1359/jbmr.061008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheung AM, Detsky AS (2008) Osteoporosis and fractures: missing the bridge? J Am Med Assoc 299:1468–1470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sherrington C, Whitney JC, Lord SR et al (2008) Effective exercise for the prevention of falls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:2234–2243. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02014.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelley GA, Kelley KS, Tran ZV, et al. (2014) Exercise and bone mineral density in men: a meta-analysis. 1730–1736.

  9. Carter ND, Khan KM, Mckay HA et al (2002) Community-based exercise program reduces risk factors for falls in 65- to 75-year-old women with osteoporosis: randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 167:997–1004

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang JT, Morton SC, Rubenstein LZ et al (2004) Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Br Med J 328:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Qaseem A, Snow V, Gosfield A et al (2010) Pay for performance through the lens of medical professionalism. Ann Intern Med 152:366–369. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Field MJ, Lohr KN (1990) Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, D.C

  13. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A et al (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103–106. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02171-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rivara FP (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? AAP Grand Rounds 281:1900–1905. doi:10.1542/gr.2-2-15

    Google Scholar 

  15. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F et al (2012) Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 156:525–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kung J (2012) Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet Institute of Medicine standards: two more decades of little, if any, progress. Arch Intern Med 172:1628–1633. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP et al (2010) AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. Can Med Assoc J 182:E839–842. doi:10.1503/090449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vasse E, Vernooij-Dassen M, Cantegreil I et al (2012) Guidelines for psychosocial interventions in dementia care: a European survey and comparison. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 27:40–48. doi:10.1002/gps.2687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van den Berg T, Engelhardt EG, Haanstra TM et al (2011) Methodology of clinical nutrition guidelines for adult cancer patients: how good are they according to AGREE criteria? J Parenter Enter Nutr 36:316–322. doi:10.1177/0148607111414027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alonso-Coello P, Irfan A, Solà I et al (2010) The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care 19, e58. doi:10.1136/qshc.2010.042077

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Ansary LA, Tricco AC, Adi Y et al (2013) A systematic review of recent clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis. Assessment and management of hypertension. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053744

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nelson AE, Allen KD, Golightly YM et al (2014) A systematic review of recommendations and guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis: The Chronic Osteoarthritis Management Initiative of the U.S. Bone and Joint Initiative. Semin Arthritis Rheum 43:701–712. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.11.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacDermid JC, Brooks D, Solway S et al (2005) Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 5:18. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP et al (2010) Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. Cmaj 182:1045–1052. doi:10.1503/cmaj.091714

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lytras T, Bonovas S, Chronis C et al (2014) Occupational asthma guidelines: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument. Occup Environ Med 71:81–6. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shrout P, Fleiss J (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ou Y, Goldberg I, Migdal C, Lee PP (2011) A critical appraisal and comparison of the quality and recommendations of glaucoma clinical practice guidelines. Ophthalmology 118:1017–1023. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zeng L, Zhang L, Hu Z et al (2014) Systematic review of evidence-based guidelines on medication therapy for upper respiratory tract infection in children with AGREE instrument. PLoS ONE 9, E87711. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087711

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR et al (1999) Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 282:1458–1465. doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yan J, Min J, Zhou B (2013) Diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: a clinical practice guideline appraisal using AGREE II instrument. J Eval Clin Pract 19:626–632. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01873.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sabharwal S, Patel NK, Gauher S et al (2014) High methodologic quality but poor applicability: assessment of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1982–1988. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3530-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Don-Wauchope AC, Sievenpiper JL, Hill SA, Iorio A (2012) Applicability of the AGREE II instrument in evaluating the development process and quality of current National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry guidelines. Clin Chem 58:1426–1437. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.185850

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Z, Guo J, Su G et al (2014) Evaluation of the Quality of Guidelines for Myasthenia Gravis with the AGREE II instrument. PLoS ONE 9, e111796. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111796

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU, Norris SL (2013) Quality of clinical practice guidelines for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS ONE 8:1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cates JR, Young DN, Bowerman DS, Porter RC (2006) An independent AGREE evaluation of the occupational medicine practice guidelines. Spine J 6:72–77. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA et al (2012) Conflict of interest disclosures for clinical practice guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. PLoS ONE 7:1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047343

    Google Scholar 

  37. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU (2011) Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025153

    Google Scholar 

  38. Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross JS, Keyhani S (2011) Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5621

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG et al (2011) Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med 171:577–584. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Norris SL, Burda BU, Holmer HK et al (2012) Author’s specialty and conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 65:725–733. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Martyn-St. James M, Carroll S (2006) High-intensity resistance training and postmenopausal bone loss: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 17:1225–1240. doi:10.1007/s00198-006-0083-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hackney ME, Kantorovich S, Levin R, Earhart GM (2007) Effects of tango on functional mobility in Parkinson’s disease: a preliminary study. J Neurol Phys Ther 31:173–179. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e31815ce78b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martyn-St James M (2008) A meta-analysis of impact exercise on postmenopausal bone loss: the case for mixed loading exercise programmes. Br J Sports Med. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.052704

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. De Kam D, Smulders E, Weerdesteyn V, Smits-Engelsman BCM (2009) Exercise interventions to reduce fall-related fractures and their risk factors in individuals with low bone density: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 20:2111–2125. doi:10.1007/s00198-009-0938-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Vlayen J, Aertgeerts B, Hannes K et al (2005) A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. Int J Qual Heal Care 17:235–242. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi027

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

James Armstrong was funded by the Schulich School of Medicine Summer Research Training Program (SRTP). Joy MacDermid was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Chair in Gender, Work and Health, and Dr. James Roth Research Chair in Musculoskeletal Measurement and Knowledge Translation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, 1465 Richmond St., London, ON, N6G 2M1, Canada

    James Jacob Armstrong & Tom Wasiuta

  2. McMaster University School of Rehabilitation Science, 1225 Royal York Rd., Toronto, ON, M9A 4B5, Canada

    Isabel Braganca Rodrigues

  3. Hand and Upper Limb Center Clinical Research Lab, 930 Richmond St., London, ON, N6A 3J4, Canada

    Joy C. MacDermid

Authors
  1. James Jacob Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabel Braganca Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom Wasiuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joy C. MacDermid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Jacob Armstrong.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armstrong, J.J., Rodrigues, I.B., Wasiuta, T. et al. Quality assessment of osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines for physical activity and safe movement: an AGREE II appraisal. Arch Osteoporos 11, 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0260-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0260-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation