Guías de práctica clínica en el Perú: evaluación de su calidad usando el instrumento AGREE II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) put into practice by the Peruvian Ministry of Health (MINSA), 17 CPGs from the ministry, published between 2009 and 2014, were independently evaluated by three methodologic experts using the AGREE II instrument. The score of AGREE II domains was low and very low in all CPGs: scope and purpose (medium, 44%), clarity of presentation (medium, 47%), participation of decision-makers (medium, 8%), methodological rigor (medium, 5%), applicability (medium, 5%), and editorial independence (medium, 8%). In conclusion, the methodological quality of CPGs implemented by the MINSA is low. Consequently, its use could not be recommended. The implementation of the methodology for the development of CPGs described in the recentlypublished CPG methodological preparation manual in Peru is a pressing need.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".