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.

An Instrument for Evaluating the Clinical Applicability of Guidelines

[Development of a Ranking Tool for Scientificity, Transparency and Applicability of Clinical Practice Guidelines].

Development and Preliminary Verification of the Evaluation System for Clinical Practice Guidelines in China

Development of the Implementability Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice Guidelines Based on the COSMIN Framework and Factorial Experiment: a Study Protocol

Development of the Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) tool for clinical practice guidelines

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

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

Assessing the Quality of Mobile Exercise Apps Based on the American College of Sports Medicine Guidelines: A Reliable and Valid Scoring Instrument.

Determinants of successful guideline implementation: a national cross-sectional survey

Application evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine: a clinical analysis based on the analytic hierarchy process

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

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

An extension of the RIGHT statement for introductions and interpretations of clinical practice guidelines: RIGHT for INT

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

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

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

Model Construction of Medical Endoscope Service Evaluation System-Based on the Analysis of Delphi Method

Guideline for [clinical Guidelines Constitution/Amendment] in China.

How Well Did the Consensus Methods Apply in the Guideline Development of Traditional Chinese Medicine: a Web-Based Survey in China

Framework Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs–a Study Protocol Using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process

Development of clinical practice guidelines for assessment before peripherally inserted central catheter placement:AGREE evaluation