Tom Holvoet1, Sarah Raevens1, Yves-Paul Vandewynckel1, Wim Van Biesen2, Karen Geboes1, Hans Van Vlierberghe3. 1. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. ERBP, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Renal Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: Hans.VanVlierberghe@UGent.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Multiple guidelines have been developed to assist clinicians in its management. We aimed to explore methodological quality of these guidelines focusing on treatment of intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma by transarterial chemoembolization. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus statements for hepatocellular carcinoma management. Guideline quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument, which rates guideline development processes across 6 domains: 'Scope and purpose', 'Stakeholder involvement', 'Rigour of development', 'Clarity of presentation', 'Applicability' and 'Editorial independence'. Thematic analysis of guidelines was performed to map differences in recommendations. RESULTS: Quality of 21 included guidelines varied widely, but was overall poor with only one guideline passing the 50% mark on all domains. Key recommendations as (contra)indications and technical aspects were inconsistent between guidelines. Aspects on side effects and health economics were mainly neglected. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of guidelines on transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma management is poor. This results in important discrepancies between guideline recommendations, creating confusion in clinical practice. Incorporation of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument in guideline development may improve quality of future guidelines by increasing focus on methodological aspects.
BACKGROUND:Hepatocellular carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Multiple guidelines have been developed to assist clinicians in its management. We aimed to explore methodological quality of these guidelines focusing on treatment of intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma by transarterial chemoembolization. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus statements for hepatocellular carcinoma management. Guideline quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument, which rates guideline development processes across 6 domains: 'Scope and purpose', 'Stakeholder involvement', 'Rigour of development', 'Clarity of presentation', 'Applicability' and 'Editorial independence'. Thematic analysis of guidelines was performed to map differences in recommendations. RESULTS: Quality of 21 included guidelines varied widely, but was overall poor with only one guideline passing the 50% mark on all domains. Key recommendations as (contra)indications and technical aspects were inconsistent between guidelines. Aspects on side effects and health economics were mainly neglected. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of guidelines on transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma management is poor. This results in important discrepancies between guideline recommendations, creating confusion in clinical practice. Incorporation of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument in guideline development may improve quality of future guidelines by increasing focus on methodological aspects.
Keywords:
Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument; Clinical practice guidelines; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Transarterial chemoembolization