| Literature DB >> 32975563 |
Deepa Jeevanantham1,2, Venkadesan Rajendran1,2, Zachary McGillis3, Line Tremblay4, Céline Larivière5, Andrew Knight2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with multiple myeloma (MM) often have reduced functional performance due to the cancer itself or as a direct side effect of cancer treatments. Physical therapy is a part of cancer rehabilitation; however, no guidelines are available to provide information and direction for physical therapists managing patients with MM. The goal of this guideline is to provide recommendations based on a systematic review and consensus process that physical therapists can use to manage patients with MM.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical Guidelines; Exercise Therapy; Guidelines; Oncology
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 32975563 PMCID: PMC7781094 DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Phys Ther ISSN: 0031-9023
Levels of Evidence
|
|
|
|---|---|
| I | Evidence obtained from high-quality diagnostic studies, prognostic or prospective studies, cohort studies or randomized controlled trials, meta analyses or systematic reviews (critical appraisal score |
| II | Evidence obtained from lesser-quality diagnostic studies, prognostic or prospective studies, cohort studies or randomized controlled trials, meta analyses or systematic reviews (eg, weaker diagnostic criteria and reference standards, improper randomization, no blinding, |
| III | Case-controlled studies or retrospective studies |
| IV | Case studies and case series |
| V | Expert opinion |
Reprinted from Kaplan S, Coulter C, Fetters L. Developing evidence-based physical therapy clinical practice guidelines. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2013;25:257–270, with permission of Wolters Kluwer Health Inc. The Creative Commons license does not apply to this table. Use of the material in any format is prohibited without written permission from the publisher, Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Please contact permissions@lww.com for further information.
Definition of Grades of Recommendation for Action Statements
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| A | Strong | A preponderance of level I studies, but at least 1 level I study directly on the topic support the recommendation |
| B | Moderate | A preponderance of level II studies but at least 1 level II study directly on topic support the recommendation |
| C | Weak | A single level II study at <25% critical appraisal score or a preponderance of level III and IV studies, including statements of consensus by content experts support the recommendation |
| D | Theoretical/foundational | A preponderance of evidence from animal or cadaver studies, from conceptual/theoretical models/principles, or from basic science/bench research, or published expert opinion in peer-reviewed journals supports the recommendation |
| P | Best practice | Recommended practice based on current clinical practice norms, exceptional situations where validating studies have not or cannot be performed and there is a clear benefit, harm, or cost, and/or the clinical experience of the guideline development group |
| R | Research | There is an absence of research on the topic, or higher-quality studies conducted on the topic disagree with respect to their conclusions. The recommendation is based on these conflicting or absent studies. |
Reprinted from Kaplan S, Coulter C, Fetters L. Developing evidence-based physical therapy clinical practice guidelines. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2013;25:257–270, with permission of Wolters Kluwer Health Inc. The Creative Commons license does not apply to this table. Use of the material in any format is prohibited without written permission from the publisher, Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Please contact permissions@lww.com for further information.
FigurePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) flow diagram.
AGREE II Domain Scores and Recommendations for Use of This Guideline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and purpose (total score of 3 items) | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 100 |
| Stakeholder involvement (total score of 3 items) | 21 | 21 | 18 | 19 | 93 |
| Rigor of development (total score of 8 items) | 56 | 55 | 54 | 51 | 94.8 |
| Clarity of presentation (total score of 3 items) | 21 | 19 | 21 | 19 | 94.4 |
| Applicability (total score of 4 items) | 25 | 26 | 28 | 20 | 86.4 |
| Editorial independence (total score of 2 items) | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 100 |
| Overall quality of guideline | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 87.5 |
| Recommended for use | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Quality of guideline score ranges from 1 (lowest possible quality) to 7 (highest possible quality).
Domain scores were calculated as per the scoring criteria outlined in the AGREE II tool.
Domain scores of ≥70% considered a high-quality guideline.