Roderick C N van den Bergh1, Piet Ost2, Christian Surcel3, Massimo Valerio4, Jurgen J Fütterer5, Giorgio Gandaglia6, Prasanna Sooriakumaran7, Derya Tilki8, Igor Tsaur9, Guillaume Ploussard10. 1. Department of Urology, Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands. roodvdb@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Centre of Urological Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. 4. Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 7. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Department of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center and University Hospital, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, Saint Jean Languedoc Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines and recommendations become increasingly important in clinical urologic practice. This study aims to inform clinicians using guidelines on how to evaluate the quality of the methodology and transparency of these documents. METHODS: The guidelines on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of the American Urology Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Society of Medical Oncology were reviewed using the AGREE-II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). We reported and compared the domain scores for the domains 1 scope and purpose, 2 stakeholder involvement, 3 rigor of development, 4 clarity of presentation, 5 applicability, and 6 editorial independence (100% indicates highest-best quality score). RESULTS: The domains evaluated highest and with lowest variability were 'editorial independence' (92% {88-95%}) and 'clarity of presentation' (83% {72-90%}), while the domains with the lowest scores and most variability were 'stakeholder involvement' (56% {36-79%}) and 'applicability' (40% {30-63%}). Length and extent of detail of guidelines vary considerably, each with its own strengths and limitations and adapted to target users. Standard external review using AGREE criteria may be preferable. A formal search strategy was not performed. Findings may be outdated by guidelines' updates. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using practice guidelines need to be aware of the different domains of methodology and transparency used to assess the quality of guidelines contents and recommendations. Urologists increasingly use guidelines for support in evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. It is very important to know how to assess these documents. This study applies standard criteria to compare the design and background of different available guidelines on prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal treatment.
PURPOSE: Guidelines and recommendations become increasingly important in clinical urologic practice. This study aims to inform clinicians using guidelines on how to evaluate the quality of the methodology and transparency of these documents. METHODS: The guidelines on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of the American Urology Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Society of Medical Oncology were reviewed using the AGREE-II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). We reported and compared the domain scores for the domains 1 scope and purpose, 2 stakeholder involvement, 3 rigor of development, 4 clarity of presentation, 5 applicability, and 6 editorial independence (100% indicates highest-best quality score). RESULTS: The domains evaluated highest and with lowest variability were 'editorial independence' (92% {88-95%}) and 'clarity of presentation' (83% {72-90%}), while the domains with the lowest scores and most variability were 'stakeholder involvement' (56% {36-79%}) and 'applicability' (40% {30-63%}). Length and extent of detail of guidelines vary considerably, each with its own strengths and limitations and adapted to target users. Standard external review using AGREE criteria may be preferable. A formal search strategy was not performed. Findings may be outdated by guidelines' updates. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using practice guidelines need to be aware of the different domains of methodology and transparency used to assess the quality of guidelines contents and recommendations. Urologists increasingly use guidelines for support in evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. It is very important to know how to assess these documents. This study applies standard criteria to compare the design and background of different available guidelines on prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal treatment.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Mohit Gupta; John McCauley; Amy Farkas; Ahmet Gudeloglu; Molly M Neuberger; Yen-Yi Ho; Lawrence Yeung; Johannes Vieweg; Philipp Dahm Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Giuseppe Morgia; Giorgio Ivan Russo; Andrea Tubaro; Roberto Bortolus; Donato Randone; Pietro Gabriele; Fabio Trippa; Filiberto Zattoni; Massimo Porena; Vincenzo Mirone; Sergio Serni; Alberto Del Nero; Giancarlo Lay; Umberto Ricardi; Francesco Rocco; Carlo Terrone; Arcangelo Pagliarulo; Giuseppe Ludovico; Giuseppe Vespasiani; Maurizio Brausi; Claudio Simeone; Giovanni Novella; Giorgio Carmignani; Rosario Leonardi; Paola Pinnarò; Ugo De Paula; Renzo Corvò; Raffaele Tenaglia; Salvatore Siracusano; Giovanna Mantini; Paolo Gontero; Gianfranco Savoca; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michael S Cookson; Bruce J Roth; Philipp Dahm; Christine Engstrom; Stephen J Freedland; Maha Hussain; Daniel W Lin; William T Lowrance; Mohammad Hassan Murad; William K Oh; David F Penson; Adam S Kibel Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 7.450