L Gao1, S Q Yu1, J C Yang1, J L Ma2, S Y Zhan1,3, F Sun1,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China. 2. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China. 3. Center of Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and assess the quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer screening worldwide to provide guidance for the development of high-quality colorectal cancer screening guidelines in mainland China. METHODS: CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify guidelines on colorectal cancer screening from inception to Jun. 20th, 2018, and so were some websites and major search engines about the development of the guidelines from the existing literature (search date: Aug. 3rd, 2018). Two experienced reviewers independently examined these abstracts and then extracted information, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) were used to evaluate the methodological quality of these guidelines by four well trained reviewers. RESULTS: In this study, 46 guidelines published from 1994 to 2018 were finally included in our analysis from 10 countries and 5 regions, among which 5 were from mainland China. The quality of these guidelines was relatively high in domain 1 (scope and purpose) and domain 4 (clarity of presentation), and medium in domain 2 (stakeholder involvement). While in the other three domains (domain 3: rigour of development; domain 5: applicability; domain 6: editorial independence), the results were quite different among these guidelines. The quality of evidence-based guidelines (defined by the criteria based on World Health Organization guideline development handbook) was generally higher than that of the common guidelines. Existing guidelines from mainland China were not evidence-based guidelines, which were of low quality. CONCLUSION: The colorectal cancer screening guidelines all over the world are generally large in number, low in quality, different in statements, and so are the guidelines in China. There are no evidence-based guidelines in mainland China, which cannot provide effective guidance for colorectal cancer screening, so we need to pay more attention to the establishment of guidelines with high quality and high credibility for colorectal cancer screening as well as for cancer screening based on the national condition, in order to provide reasonable guidance for practice in public health and improve the health conditions in our society.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and assess the quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer screening worldwide to provide guidance for the development of high-quality colorectal cancer screening guidelines in mainland China. METHODS: CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify guidelines on colorectal cancer screening from inception to Jun. 20th, 2018, and so were some websites and major search engines about the development of the guidelines from the existing literature (search date: Aug. 3rd, 2018). Two experienced reviewers independently examined these abstracts and then extracted information, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) were used to evaluate the methodological quality of these guidelines by four well trained reviewers. RESULTS: In this study, 46 guidelines published from 1994 to 2018 were finally included in our analysis from 10 countries and 5 regions, among which 5 were from mainland China. The quality of these guidelines was relatively high in domain 1 (scope and purpose) and domain 4 (clarity of presentation), and medium in domain 2 (stakeholder involvement). While in the other three domains (domain 3: rigour of development; domain 5: applicability; domain 6: editorial independence), the results were quite different among these guidelines. The quality of evidence-based guidelines (defined by the criteria based on World Health Organization guideline development handbook) was generally higher than that of the common guidelines. Existing guidelines from mainland China were not evidence-based guidelines, which were of low quality. CONCLUSION: The colorectal cancer screening guidelines all over the world are generally large in number, low in quality, different in statements, and so are the guidelines in China. There are no evidence-based guidelines in mainland China, which cannot provide effective guidance for colorectal cancer screening, so we need to pay more attention to the establishment of guidelines with high quality and high credibility for colorectal cancer screening as well as for cancer screening based on the national condition, in order to provide reasonable guidance for practice in public health and improve the health conditions in our society.
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: Prev Med Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Desmond Leddin; David A Lieberman; Frances Tse; Alan N Barkun; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; John K Marshall; N Jewel Samadder; Harminder Singh; Jennifer J Telford; Jill Tinmouth; Anna N Wilkinson; Grigorios I Leontiadis Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J J Y Sung; S C Ng; F K L Chan; H M Chiu; H S Kim; T Matsuda; S S M Ng; J Y W Lau; S Zheng; S Adler; N Reddy; K G Yeoh; K K F Tsoi; J Y L Ching; E J Kuipers; L Rabeneck; G P Young; R J Steele; D Lieberman; K L Goh Journal: Gut Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 23.059