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.

GRADE pearls and pitfalls—Part 2: Clinical practice guidelines

GRADE pearls and pitfalls—Part 1: Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

CME CLINICAL COMMENTARY REVIEW: Patient Centered Practice Guidelines: GRADEing Evidence to Incorporate Certainty, Balance Between Benefits and Harms, Equity, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness

GRADE Guidance 39: Using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guideline Development Scheme: An Overview of Evidence Quality Assessment Methods, Evidence to Decision Frameworks, and Reporting Standards in Guideline Development

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

A pragmatic approach to selecting a grading system for clinical practice recommendations in palliative care

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making

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

Uncovering Gaps in GRADE Reporting of Eastern Association for Surgeons of Trauma (EAST) Guidelines

Validating and Updating GRASP: A New Evidence-Based Framework for Grading and Assessment of Clinical Predictive Tools

Developing an Evidence-Based Framework for Grading and Assessment of Predictive Tools for Clinical Decision Support

Clinical guidelines: grading the evidence behind the practice

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

The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting

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

Evidence‐basing for quality improvement; bringing clinical practice guidelines closer to their promise of improving care practices

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

GRADE Notes 2: Criteria for searching non-randomized or indirect evidence should be defined early in the guideline production process

New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide