The purpose of this research was to evaluate the quality of global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on gout. To identify and select CPGs related to gout, researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature database), GIN (Guidelines International Network), NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse), WHO (World Health Organization), SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network), DynaMed, UpToDate, and Best Practice databases from their inception until January 2017. Using the AGREE II instrument, two reviewers independently analyzed the qualifying gout CPGs. They looked at 15 CPGs released between 2007 and 2017 by 13 different developers. Quality of evidence and recommendation strength were reported in 14 and 13 CPGs, respectively. The following were the mean ratings for each AGREE II domain: I scope and purpose: 75%, (ii) stakeholder involvement: 39%, (iii) rigor of development: 43%, (iv) clarity and presentation: 82%, (v) applicability: 31%, and (vi) editorial independence: 23%.

The quality of gout CPGs was inadequate, and several incompatible grading methods of evidence quality and recommendation strength were utilized. To guarantee high methodological quality of gout CPGs, the implementation of a consistent worldwide grading system is important. Future gout CPG creation and updating might be greatly aided by tools like AGREE II.