{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025036818851251842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014727540500736377, 'mean_word_length': 5.732673267326732, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the development of clinical practice guidelines for non‐neurogenic overactive bladder trustworthy? A critical appraisal using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument

It is known that the potential benefits of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are as good as the quality of the guidelines themselves.(1) Consequently, the use of appropriate methodologies for their elaboration processes is essential to create reliable recommendations for both physicians and patients. We aim to critically appraise the development of overactive bladder (OAB) CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.