Table 2

Final Item Wording With Utility Scores and Ratings

Final Item Wording	Median Utility Score^a	Rating Item as Major Threat %
Relevance threats
1. The patient populations and conditions are relevant to my clinical setting.	15.7	29.4
2. The recommendations are clear and actionable.	11.2	35.3
3. The recommendations focus on improving patient-oriented outcomes, explicitly comparing benefits versus harms to support clinical decision making.	18.0	82.4
Evidence threats
4. The guidelines are based on a systematic review of the research data.	22.5	100.0
5. The recommendation statements important to you are based on graded evidence and include a description of the quality (e,g, strong, weak) of the evidence.	20.2	85.3
6. The guideline development includes a research analyst, such as a statistician or epidemiologist.	2.3	26.5
Interpretation threats
7. The Chair of the guideline development committee and a majority of the rest of the committee are free of declared financial conflicts of interest, and the guideline development group did not receive industry funding for developing the guideline.	3.4	47.1
8. The guideline development includes members from the most relevant specialties and includes other key stakeholders, such as patients, payer organizations, and public health entities, when applicable.	6.7	41.2