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.