Pascal Gavriilidis1, Keith J Roberts2, Alan Askari3, Robert P Sutcliffe2, Teh-la Huo4, Po-Hong Liu4, Ernest Hidalgo5, Philippe Compagnon6, Chetana Lim7, Daniel Azoulay8. 1. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil, France; Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 1NU, UK. 2. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 1NU, UK. 3. Department of Surgery, Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Heath Rd, Ipswich, Suffolk IP4 5PD, UK. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital & National Yang-Ming University, No: 201, Sec 2, Shipai Rd, Taipei 11217, Taiwan. 5. Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Beckett Str Leeds LS9 7TF, UK. 6. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil, France; INSERM U 955, Créteil, France. 7. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil, France. 8. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil, France; INSERM U 955, Créteil, France. Electronic address: daniel.azoulay@aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Numerous guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been developed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) is the only validated instrument to assess the methodological quality of guidelines. We aim to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for the resection of HCC using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Cochrane, Medline, Google Scholar and Embase were searched using both PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria and free text. The assessment of the included clinical practice guidelines and consensuses were performed using the AGREE II instrument, version 2013. Guidelines with a score ⩾80% for the overall appraisal item were considered as applicable without modifications. RESULTS: Literature searches identified 22 clinical practice guidelines. Five out of 22 guidelines passed the 70% mark on overall assessment, 11 out of 22 had shortcomings on indications, contraindications, side effects, key recommendations, technical aspects, transparency and health economics. Ten of 22 scored below the 50% mark showing that the guideline had low methodological and overall quality. Only 3/22 clinical practice guidelines were considered applicable without modifications. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of guidelines for the surgical management of HCC is generally poor. Future guideline development should be informed by the use of the AGREE II instrument. Guidelines based upon high quality evidence could improve stratification of patients and individualized treatment strategies. Lay summary: The methodology of clinical practice guidelines for resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument is generally poor. However, there are some clinical practice guidelines that are based upon higher quality evidence and can form the framework within which patients with HCC can be selected for surgical resection. Future guideline development should be informed by the use of the AGREE II instrument.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Numerous guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been developed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) is the only validated instrument to assess the methodological quality of guidelines. We aim to appraise the methodological quality of existing guidelines for the resection of HCC using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Cochrane, Medline, Google Scholar and Embase were searched using both PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria and free text. The assessment of the included clinical practice guidelines and consensuses were performed using the AGREE II instrument, version 2013. Guidelines with a score ⩾80% for the overall appraisal item were considered as applicable without modifications. RESULTS: Literature searches identified 22 clinical practice guidelines. Five out of 22 guidelines passed the 70% mark on overall assessment, 11 out of 22 had shortcomings on indications, contraindications, side effects, key recommendations, technical aspects, transparency and health economics. Ten of 22 scored below the 50% mark showing that the guideline had low methodological and overall quality. Only 3/22 clinical practice guidelines were considered applicable without modifications. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of guidelines for the surgical management of HCC is generally poor. Future guideline development should be informed by the use of the AGREE II instrument. Guidelines based upon high quality evidence could improve stratification of patients and individualized treatment strategies. Lay summary: The methodology of clinical practice guidelines for resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument is generally poor. However, there are some clinical practice guidelines that are based upon higher quality evidence and can form the framework within which patients with HCC can be selected for surgical resection. Future guideline development should be informed by the use of the AGREE II instrument.
Keywords:
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument; Clinical practice guidelines; Consensus; Evidence based medicine; Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)