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.

The quality and clinical applicability of recommendations in anxiety disorders guidelines: A systematic review of seventeen guidelines from seven countries

Identifying complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for anxiety treatment and care: a systematic review and critical assessment of comprehensive clinical practice guidelines

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

Values and Preferences of Health Care Professionals, Policy-Makers, Patients and Family Members Regarding Recommendations of Adapted Physical Restraint Guidelines in Critical Care: A Survey Research

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

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review With AGREE II

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

Evaluation of the Quality of Management Guidelines for Children and Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Development and implementation of guidelines for the management of depression: a systematic review

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

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

Quality appraisal of guidelines on physical restraints in intensive care units: A systematic review

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

Recommendations and quality of multimorbidity guidelines: a systematic review

Investigation and Evaluation of Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines Published in Medical Journals in 2019: Analysis of the Evidence

Research Review: Recommendations for reporting on treatment trials for child and adolescent anxiety disorders - an international consensus statement

A review of neuroimaging studies of anxiety disorders in China.

Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance of the General Anxiety Disorder Scale Among Chinese Medical University Students

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

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder