Table 3 AGREE II Reporting table for Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines
From: Process description and evaluation of Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines development
AGREE II Item | Reporting Location in Physical Activities Guidelines | Internal AGREE II score |
|---|---|---|
Domain 1. Scope and Purpose | Â | Â |
1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described. | Process paper, table 1 | 7 |
2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described. | Process paper, table 1 | 7 |
3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described. | Process paper, table 1 | 7 |
Domain 2. Stakeholder Involvement | Â | Â |
4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups. | Process paper, Stakeholder Involvement description | 7 |
| Â | Process paper, Rigour of development description | Â |
| Â | Process paper, Table 2 | Â |
5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought. | Process paper, Stakeholder Involvement description | 1 |
6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. | Consensus paper, Review section, paragraph 3 | 7 |
Domain 3. Rigour of Development | Â | Â |
7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. | Please see each of the systematic reviews for information on this item | 7 |
8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. | Please see each of the systematic reviews for information on this item | 7 |
9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. | Please see each of the systematic reviews for tables outlining the risk of bias of individual studies | 5 |
| Â | Process paper, Rigour of Development description | Â |
| Â | Process paper, Table 3 | Â |
10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. | Process paper, Rigour of Development description | 7 |
| Â | Consensus paper, Review section | Â |
11. The health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. | Consensus paper, adverse effects section | 7 |
12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. | Consensus paper recommendations | 1 |
13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. | Process paper, Rigour of Development description | 7 |
14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. | Process paper, Rigour of Development description | 7 |
Domain 4. Clarity of Presentation | Â | Â |
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. | Process paper, Clarity of Presentation description | 7 |
| Â | Consensus paper | Â |
16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented. | Process paper, Clarity of Presentation description | 7 |
17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable. | Consensus paper | 7 |
18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application. | Process paper, Clarity of Presentation description | 1 |
Domain 5. Applicability | Â | Â |
19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. | Process paper, Applicability description | 7 |
20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered. | Process paper, Applicability description | 1 |
21. The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria. | Process paper, Applicability description | 7 |
Domain 6. Editorial Independence | Â | Â |
22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline. | Process paper, Editorial Independence description | 7 |
23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed. | Process paper, Editorial Independence description | 7 |
| Â | Consensus paper, Competing interests | Â |
| Â | Systematic reviews | Â |