Care plans for women pregnant using assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review

Table 2 Summary of AGREE-II results

Guideline Identifiers		Aspects of AGREE-II Evaluation
Guideline Identifiers		Domains^a
Author	Year	Scope and purpose (%)	Stakeholder involvement (%)	Rigour of development (%)	Clarity and presentation (%)	Applicability (%)	Editorial independence (%)	Overall quality^b
Alexander et al. [23]	2017	81	43	59	89	6	50	5 (moderate)
ACOG [25]	2016	22	26	17	57	6	0	2 (low)
ASRM [24]	2015	43	15	51	81	7	33	4 (moderate)
Bates et al. [27]	2012	74	19	36	78	10	89	4 (moderate)
Chan et al. [26]	2014	78	26	35	74	6	3	4 (moderate)
Chitayat et al. [19]	2011	81	43	44	83	17	3	5 (moderate)
Gameiro et al. [21]	2015	100	87	85	89	57	97	6 (high)
Okun and Sierra [18]	2014	70	41	46	78	7	6	4 (moderate)
RANZCOG [22]	2015	43	13	9	17	11	3	2 (low)
Thorne and Wischmann [20]	2009	46	13	3	69	7	0	2 (low)

^adomain % scores were calculated using the methods described in the AGREE-II user’s manual
^boverall quality scores were on a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 rating the highest quality. An overall quality score of 1–3 was judged as low quality. An overall quality score of 4–5 was judged as moderate quality. An overall quality score of 6–7 was judged as high quality
ACOG American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
ASRM American Society for Reproductive Medicine
RANZCOG The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

ISSN: 1742-4755