Meisser Vidal Madera Anaya1, Juan Victor Franco2, Ángela María Merchán-Galvis3, Carmen R Gallardo4, Xavier Bonfill Cosp5. 1. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain; Department of Research, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia; Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co. 2. Cochrane Argentina, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain; Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Unit of Preventive Medicine, Hospital Vega Baja de Orihuela, Alicante, Spain. 5. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain; Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The applicability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for oral cancer remains unknown since there are no systematic assessments of their quality. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify and assess the quality of them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify CPGs that provided recommendations on treatments for oral cancer. The quality of each included CPG was determined using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, by four appraisers independently. The inter-appraisers agreement was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve CPGs met the eligibility criteria. Overall agreement among appraisers was very good (ICC: 0.865; 95% CI: 0.835-0.889). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were the following: "scope and purpose" 88.4%±12.4%; "stakeholder involvement" 60.4%±25%; "rigor of development" 60.9%±25.3%; "clarity of presentation" 76.5%±19.8%; "applicability" 32.2%±30.7%; and "editorial independence" 61.6%±35.5%. Three CPGs were rated as "recommended"; six as "recommended with modifications"; and three as "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of CPGs on treatments for oral cancer is suboptimal. These findings highlight the need to improve CPG development processes and their applicability in this field. Thus, increased efforts are required to enable the development of high-quality evidence-based CPGs for oral cancer.
BACKGROUND: The applicability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for oral cancer remains unknown since there are no systematic assessments of their quality. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify and assess the quality of them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify CPGs that provided recommendations on treatments for oral cancer. The quality of each included CPG was determined using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, by four appraisers independently. The inter-appraisers agreement was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve CPGs met the eligibility criteria. Overall agreement among appraisers was very good (ICC: 0.865; 95% CI: 0.835-0.889). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were the following: "scope and purpose" 88.4%±12.4%; "stakeholder involvement" 60.4%±25%; "rigor of development" 60.9%±25.3%; "clarity of presentation" 76.5%±19.8%; "applicability" 32.2%±30.7%; and "editorial independence" 61.6%±35.5%. Three CPGs were rated as "recommended"; six as "recommended with modifications"; and three as "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of CPGs on treatments for oral cancer is suboptimal. These findings highlight the need to improve CPG development processes and their applicability in this field. Thus, increased efforts are required to enable the development of high-quality evidence-based CPGs for oral cancer.
Authors: Hugo Fontan Köhler; Hisham Mehanna; Jatin P Shah; Alvaro Sanabria; Johannes Fagan; Moni A Kuriakose; C Rene Leemans; Brian O'Sullivan; Suren Krishnan; Luiz P Kowalski Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.503