Literature DB >> 18226597

Mass colorectal cancer screening: methodological quality of practice guidelines is not related to their content validity.

Joseph C Watine1, Peter S Bunting.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: It is not clear if good methodological quality in developing practice guidelines (GLs) necessarily leads to valid recommendations that, when implemented, are more likely to improve the balance between benefits and harms/costs. We assessed whether or not there is a link between methodological quality and recommendation validity in GLs for the use of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as a screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the average-risk population.
METHODS: We systematically searched for such practice GLs published in English or in French within the last 7 years. Our inclusion criteria limited the initial 36 GLs to 12. Scores for methodological quality based on the AGREE criteria were attributed to each of these 12 GLs. Likewise, we searched for meta-analysis and other systematic reviews (SRs) addressing the issue, and we selected for inclusion 8 SRs that met basic quality criteria according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS). We used the results and conclusions of these 8 SRs to establish the validity of recommendations made in the 12 included GLs.
RESULTS: Regarding methodological quality, the GLs were labeled either "strongly recommend" (n=3), "recommend with provisos or alterations" (n=3), "would not recommend" (n=2), or "unsure" (n=4). The nine GLs recommending for, as well as the three GLs recommending against, mass-screening are equally valid, because the former base their recommendation on the fact that this can decrease CRC-mortality, whereas the latter base their recommendation on the facts that: (1) this procedure would be too expensive and/or not adapted to their local organization of care, and (2) to a lesser extent, the balance between benefits and harms is not crystal-clear from an individual patient perspective.
CONCLUSION: The fact that the 12 GLs fell short of basic quality criteria confirms many previous observations in various areas of medicine. Because the 12 GLs were found to be equally valid regarding their FOBT-related recommendations, no relation could be found between their methodological quality and their content validity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18226597     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2007.12.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biochem        ISSN: 0009-9120            Impact factor:   3.281


  9 in total

1.  Quality evidence important for quality guidelines.

Authors:  Jan Matthys; Marc De Meyere
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Is it time to develop AGREE III?

Authors:  Joseph Watine
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Discovery of genes from feces correlated with colorectal cancer progression.

Authors:  Chia-Long Lee; Chi-Jung Huang; Shung-Haur Yang; Chun-Chao Chang; Chi-Cheng Huang; Chih-Cheng Chien; Ruey-Neng Yang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.967

4.  Lowly expressed ribosomal protein s19 in the feces of patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Chih-Cheng Chien; Tien-Chien Tu; Chi-Jung Huang; Shung-Haur Yang; Chia-Long Lee
Journal:  ISRN Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01-09

Review 5.  Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Tessa E R Gillon; Anouk Pels; Peter von Dadelszen; Karen MacDonell; Laura A Magee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis.

Authors:  Yosuke Hatakeyama; Kanako Seto; Rebeka Amin; Takefumi Kitazawa; Shigeru Fujita; Kunichika Matsumoto; Tomonori Hasegawa
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 7.  The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Christiane Muth; Jochen Gensichen; Martin Beyer; Allen Hutchinson; Ferdinand M Gerlach
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 8.  A systematic review of recent clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis, assessment and management of hypertension.

Authors:  Lubna A Al-Ansary; Andrea C Tricco; Yaser Adi; Ghada Bawazeer; Laure Perrier; Mohammed Al-Ghonaim; Nada AlYousefi; Mariam Tashkandi; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal.

Authors:  Shirley H Bush; Katie L Marchington; Meera Agar; Daniel H J Davis; Lindsey Sikora; Tammy W Y Tsang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.