Determining the methodological rigor and overall quality of out-of-hospital clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review

Table 2 Pairwise comparison of CPGs based on developing group category

Guideline producer category¹	Domain 3 Score, mean (SD)	Individual ambulance/EMS, H, (p-value)²	Academic Group, H, (p-value)²	Professional medical society, H, (p-value)²	Meet all NAM criteria, n, (%)	Academic Group, p-value⁴	Professional medical society, p-value⁴
Individual ambulance /EMS	23.3 (23.3)	-	-	-	N/A³	-	-
Academic Group	49.2 (18.3)	50.2 (0.07)	-	-	0/20 (0)	-	-
Professional medical society	57.8 (21.7)	-79.9 (< 0.001)	-29.7 (0.49)	-	20/86 (23.3)	< 0.001	-
National health institute or governing body	76.7 (11.1)	-150.5 (< 0.001)	-100.3 (< 0.001)	70.6 (< 0.001)	31/40 (77.5)	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 2 footnotes: ¹ Due to the small sample size (n = 4 in Domain 3 score and n = 0 in NAM criteria), CPGs produced by national emergency medical service groups were excluded from post-hoc comparisons. ² Analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc comparisons made using Dunn’s method with Bonferroni correction. ³ No CPGs produced by individual ambulance or emergency medical service were assessed against the NAM criteria. ⁴ Analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test. SD: Standard deviation; EMS: /emergency medical service

ISSN: 1757-7241