Assessing the quality of seven clinical practice guidelines from four professional regulatory bodies in Quebec: What's the verdict?

Rationale, aims, and objectives Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become a common feature in the health and social care fields, as they promote evidence‐based practice and aim to improve quality of care and patient outcome. However, the benefits of the recommendations reported in CPGs are only as good as the quality of the CPGs themselves. Indeed, rigorous development and strategies for reporting are significant precursors to successful implementation of the recommendations that are proposed. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that there is much variability in their level of quality. Furthermore, the quality of many CPGs has yet to be examined. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of seven CPGs from four Quebec professional regulatory bodies pertaining to clinical evaluations in the fields of medicine, psychoeducation, psychotherapy, and social work. Methods The seven Quebec CPGs were assessed by four trained appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II guideline evaluation tool. Results Results suggest that while some quality criteria were met, most were not, denoting that these CPGs are of sub‐optimal quality. Conclusion Our findings highlight that there is still a lot to be done in order to improve the rigour and transparency with which scientific evidence is assessed and applied when developing CPGs. Impacts regarding the implementation of these CPGs are discussed in light of their use in clinical practice.