Liangying Hou

aCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Basic Medical Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China bBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada cCampbell Collaboration, Ottawa, Canada dSchool of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia eDepartment of Public Health and Healthcare-associated Infection Management, Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University, Xining, China fPopulation Health Sciences Institute,...

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias or methodological quality of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list.

Objective We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to identify the concordance of different recommendations. Study Design and Setting PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and clinical practice guideline websites were systematically searched. Four reviewers independently assessed the guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.