A critical appraisal of guidelines and recommendations for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis

Clicks: 20
ID: 331914
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #110 of 228 articles by views in clinical kidney journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 228 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objectives We aimed to appraise 11 currently available guidelines for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), identify potential gaps, and provide recommendations for improvement. Methods The guidelines were appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument consisting of 23 appraisal criteria/items across six domains (D). Four reviewers independently appraised guidelines and scaled domain scores were calculated. Results The average score of all guidelines was 4.5 ± 0.8 out of 7.0. Agreement between the reviewers was excellent. British Society for Rheumatology 2025 guidelines scored highest (5.8/7.0), being the only guideline unanimously recommended for use. In ‘D1/Scope and purpose’, all guidelines achieved high scores. In ‘D2/Stakeholder involvement’, major gaps were identified in the inclusion of the views and preferences of the target population (2c), with few guidelines including patient representatives, addressing patient participation, or considering patient views. In ‘D3/Rigour of development’, all but two guidelines received high scores. Implementation of the procedure for updating the guidelines (3 h) and for external review (3 g) was addressed poorly. In ‘D4/Clarity of presentation’, all guidelines except one received a high score. ‘D5/Applicability’ had the lowest scores due to gaps in the criteria for monitoring/auditing guideline implementation (5d), resource/cost implications (5c), lack of advice/tools for implementation (5a), and inadequate addressing of facilitators/barriers in guideline application (5a). ‘D6/Editorial independence’ was addressed well. Conclusions Several aspects of AAV guidelines could be improved, including the inclusion of patient views and preferences, the processes for translating guidelines into clinical practice, and clearer criteria for monitoring guideline implementation and uptake.
Reference Key
openalex_W7221098354 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Vanja Ivković, Sejin Park, Lauren Floyd, Yoon Seo Kwon, Annette Bruchfeld, Andreas Kronbichler, Jae Il Shin
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal clinical kidney journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ckj/sfag317
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfag317
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.