Skip to main content

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   
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   
4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups. Process paper, Stakeholder Involvement description 7
  Process paper, Rigour of development description  
  Process paper, Table 2  
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   
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
  Process paper, Rigour of Development description  
  Process paper, Table 3  
10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described. Process paper, Rigour of Development description 7
  Consensus paper, Review section  
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   
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. Process paper, Clarity of Presentation description 7
  Consensus paper  
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   
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   
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
  Consensus paper, Competing interests  
  Systematic reviews  
  1. This table outlines the different documents where readers will find information to complete quality assessment of the guidelines development process using the AGREE II instrument [19, 20]. The Internal AGREE score represents the AGREE II item score assessed by one of the consultant methodologists (ACT). Description of reporting locations: Process paper, this document; Consensus paper, Kesäniemi et al., 2009 [42]; Systematic reviews, Children and Youth: Janssen et al., 2009 [30]; Adults: Warburton et al., 2009 [31]; Older Adults: Paterson et al., 2009 [32].