Table 2 Suitability and currency assessments of IWGDF guideline to adopt or adapt; using a customised NHMRC table of factors*
Item No. | Item question | Assessor 1 | Assessor 2 | Assessor 3 | Assessor 4 | Total score | Total score % | Suitability category^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relevance | ||||||||
 1 | Is the clinical or public health context similar to Australia? | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 23 | 82% | High |
 2 | Are the population, intended users and settings comparable? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
 3 | Are the recommended interventions available in Australia? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 25 | 89% | High |
 4 | Are the guideline questions relevant in the new (Australian) context? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
 5 | Do the values and preferences considered in the guideline reflect the new (Australian) context? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
 6 | Are relevant outcomes used? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 6 items) | 36 | 37 | 40 | 41 | 154 | 92% | High |
Currency | ||||||||
 7 | When was the evidence review conducted (i.e. final literature search date)? | July 2018 | Oct 2018 | July 2018 | July 2018 | < 3 years | Moderate | Moderate (Currency)# |
 8 | Is the evidence contained out of date? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
 9 | Are new studies’ findings conducted since the review likely to change the evidence? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
 10 | Has new evidence superseded the information contained in the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
 11 | Does new evidence contradict the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 4 applicable items) | 24 | 28 | 24 | 24 | 108 | 96% | High |
Trustworthiness | ||||||||
 12 | Is there a detailed description of the development process? | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
 13 | Were conflicts of interest declared and managed? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
 14 | Was a grading system used for the recommendations? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
 15 | Are the evidence tables clearly laid out and accurate? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 26 | 93% | High |
 16 | Was the evidence review systematic and well-documented? | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 100% | High |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 5 items) | 32 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 135 | 96% | High |
Access to evidence | ||||||||
 17 | Are the tables detailing the source evidence (e.g. GRADE Evidence to Decision tables) available? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
 18 | Can permission be sought to use these tables? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 54 | 96% | High |
Implementability | ||||||||
 19 | Is information provided in the guideline to assist implementation? | 4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 64% | Moderate |
 20 | Are steps taken to improve the guideline’s implementability? | 4 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 61% | Moderate |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 8 | 12 | 5 | 10 | 35 | 63% | Moderate |
Acceptability | ||||||||
 21 | Are the recommendations acceptable? | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 27 | 96% | High |
 22 | Do the recommendations relate to current practice? | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 26 | 93% | High |
| Â | Domain Score (sum of 2 items) | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 53 | 95% | High |
| Â | Total Guideline Score (sum of all 21 applicable items) | 124 | 139 | 132 | 136 | 531 | 90% | High |
| Â | Total Guideline Score % | 84% | 95% | 90% | 93% | Â | Â | Â |
| Â | Total Guideline Suitability Category | High | High | High | High | Â | Â | Â |