{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.049855072463768114, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017391304347826087, 'mean_word_length': 5.231046931407942, '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}}
[Methodological quality assessment of guidelines for surveillance and clinical management of dengue and chikungunya].

The study aimed to assess the methodological quality of guidelines by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), and World Health Organization (WHO) on surveillance and clinical management of dengue and chikungunya. This was a descriptive study in which the tool Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Reporting Checklist II (AGREE II) was applied by four evaluators in independent and masked fashion for six guidelines. Each evaluator assigned a score from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (agree completely) to the 23 items in the AGREE II domains: scope and purpose; stakeholder involvement; rigor in the development; clarity of presentation; applicability; and editorial independence. The dengue guidelines by PAHO (mean = 5.2, SD = 0.8) and WHO (mean = 4.5, SD = 0.5) obtained the highest overall scores and were recommended with modifications by all the evaluators, while the Brazilian Ministry of Health guidelines (mean = 2.7, SD = 0.4) were not recommended by any of them. Meanwhile, the chikungunya guidelines scored low (means from 2.2 to 3.0) for all three agencies. The domains with the greatest conformity were "clarity of presentation" (median 84.7%) and "scope and purpose" (77.1%), while those with the lowest conformity were "editorial independence" (5.2%) and "rigor in development" (9.1%). The study identified gaps in the guidelines' methodological quality, mainly in transparency of the work processes, selection of scientific evidence, and formulation of recommendations, besides lack of clarity in financing and possible conflicts of interest.