Abstract:Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines have become increasingly widely used to guide quality improvement of clinical practice. Qualitative research may be a useful way to improve the quality and implementation of guidelines. The methodology for qualitative evidence used in guidelines development is worthy of further research. Methods A comprehensive search was made of WHO, NICE, SIGN, NGC, RNAO, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP from January 1, 2011 to February 25, 2020. Guidelines which met IOM criteria and were focused on clinical questions using qualitative research or qualitative evidence, were included. Four authors extracted significant information and entered this onto data extraction forms. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the guidelines’ quality. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0 and R version 3.3.2. Results Sixty four guidelines were identified. The overall quality of the guidelines was high (almost over 60%). Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) was ranked the highest with a median score of 83% (IQ 78–83). Domain 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and Domain 5 (Applicability) were ranked the lowest with median scores of 67% (IQ 67–78) and 67% (IQ 63–73) respectively. 20% guidelines used qualitative research to identify clinical questions. 86% guidelines used qualitative evidence to support recommendations (mainly based on primary studies, a few on qualitative evidence synthesis). 19% guidelines applied qualitative evidence when considering facilitators and barriers to recommendations’ implementation. 52% guideline developers evaluated the quality of the primary qualitative research study using the CASP tool or NICE checklist for qualitative studies. No guidelines evaluated the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis to formulate recommendations. 17% guidelines presented the level of qualitative research using the grade criteria of evidence and recommendation in different forms such as I, III, IV, very low. 28% guidelines described the grades of the recommendations supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence. No guidelines described the grade of recommendations only supported by qualitative evidence. Conclusions The majority of the included guidelines were high-quality. Qualitative evidence was mainly used to identify clinical questions, support recommendations, and consider facilitators and barriers to implementation of recommendations’. However, more attention needs to be paid to the methodology. For example, no experts proficient in qualitative research were involved in guideline development groups, no assessment of the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis was included and there was lack of details reported on the level of qualitative evidence or grade of recommendations.

Quality problems in clinical practice guidelines and guideline appraisal studies: Should we tolerate or eradicate?

Quality of Critical Care Clinical Practice Guidelines: Assessment with AGREE II Instrument.

Appraising the quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine using AGREE II instrument: A systematic review

An Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: What Attitude Should We Have Towards the Guidelines?

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hypertension: Evaluation of Quality Using the AGREE II Instrument

The Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in China: a Systematic Assessment.

Quality of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Guidelines is Suboptimal: an Evaluation Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument

An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines

Quality appraisal of gestational diabetes mellitus guidelines with AGREE II: a systematic review

An appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for constipation: a right attitude towards to guidelines

The Quality Of Guidelines For Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Critical Appraisal Using The Agree Ii Instrument

Assessment of the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation–Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) instrument shows there is room for improvement

Using AGREE II reporting checklist to evaluate the quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines

Characteristics and quality of clinical practice guidelines addressing acupuncture interventions: a systematic survey of 133 guidelines and 433 acupuncture recommendations

Methodological and reporting quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine

The quality of four psychology practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II

Quality assessment of Chinese clinical practice guidelines in orthopedics

Reproducibility of the AGREE II Tool for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing GI Endoscopy

A systematic critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines of antithrombotic agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the AGREE II tool