1 Introduction
The corona virus disease 2019(COVID-19), caused by new virus that first reported in Wuhan, China, in mid-December 2019, has so far infected more than 2.4 million people and spread to nearly 211 countries and areas, causing huge losses to public health and property. For standardizing the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 infections, the Chinese government, the World Health Organization (WHO) and clinical experts in relevant disciplines around the world have published numerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for COVID-19.
CPGs are regarded as systematically developed statements to assist clinical practitioners in making decisions regarding appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstance1. However, CPGs drawn up by different groups to respond for same clinic diseases may result in quite difference, even conflicting recommendations, making it difficult for clinic practitioners to choose the superior one. AGREE II (the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) is the new (2010) international tool to assess the quality and reporting of practice guidelines2. It can be used to critically appraise the comprehensiveness, rigor, clarity, and applicability, etc., of CPGs.
Furthermore, due to the urgency and damage of COVID-19, plenty of CPGs have been drafted quickly. Therefore, it is necessary and meaningful to evaluate and compare their methodologic quality, which, to date, hasn’t been performed. The objective of our present study was to evaluate the quality of currently available COVID-19 guidelines using the AGREE II instrument, so as to assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate guideline.