Hugo Fontan Köhler1, Hisham Mehanna2, Jatin P Shah3, Alvaro Sanabria4, Johannes Fagan5, Moni A Kuriakose6, C Rene Leemans7, Brian O'Sullivan8, Suren Krishnan9, Luiz P Kowalski10,11. 1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A C Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Professor Antônio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01509-010, Brazil. hkohler75@gmail.com. 2. The Institute of Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 3. Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. 5. Division of Otolaryngology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 6. Cochin Cancer Research Center, Cochin, India. 7. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 8. Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 9. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 10. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A C Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Professor Antônio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01509-010, Brazil. 11. Head and Neck Surgery Department, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations. METHODS: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol. RESULTS: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: "scope and purpose" 74.1% (6-100.0%); "stakeholder" 78.6% (0-100.0%); "rigor of development" 71.4% (0-100.0%); "clarity of presentation" 71.4% (6-100.0%); "applicability" 50.0% (0-85.7%); "editorial independence" 57.1% (14.3-85.7%) and "overall assessment" 57.1% (14.3-100.0%). CONCLUSION: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations. METHODS: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol. RESULTS: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: "scope and purpose" 74.1% (6-100.0%); "stakeholder" 78.6% (0-100.0%); "rigor of development" 71.4% (0-100.0%); "clarity of presentation" 71.4% (6-100.0%); "applicability" 50.0% (0-85.7%); "editorial independence" 57.1% (14.3-85.7%) and "overall assessment" 57.1% (14.3-100.0%). CONCLUSION: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.
Authors: Jacques Bernier; Christian Domenge; Mahmut Ozsahin; Katarzyna Matuszewska; Jean-Louis Lefèbvre; Richard H Greiner; Jordi Giralt; Philippe Maingon; Frédéric Rolland; Michel Bolla; Francesco Cognetti; Jean Bourhis; Anne Kirkpatrick; Martine van Glabbeke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anders Bilde; Christian von Buchwald; Jørgen Johansen; Lars Bastholt; Jens A H M Sørensen; Peter Marker; Annelise Krogdahl; Hanne Sand Hansen; Lena Specht; Jørgen Kirkegaard; Elo Andersen; Jens Bentzen; Christian Hjort-Sørensen; Lisbeth Juhler Andersen; Bengt Agathon Nielsen; Troels Bundgaard; Marie Overgaard; Cai Grau Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: F Cuny; E Babin; J Lacau-Saint-Guily; B Baujat; R Bensadoun; A Bozec; D Chevalier; O Choussy; S Deneuve; N Fakhry; J Guigay; M Makeieff; J-C Merol; F Mouawad; J Pavillet; C Rebiere; C Righini; M-C Sostras; M Tournaille; S Vergez Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: E de Monès; C Bertolus; P Y Salaun; F Dubrulle; J C Ferrié; S Temam; D Chevalier; S Vergez; F Lagarde; P Schultz; M Lapeyre; B Barry; S Tronche; D de Raucourt; S Morinière Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: S Vergez; S Morinière; F Dubrulle; P-Y Salaun; E De Monès; C Bertolus; S Temam; D Chevalier; F Lagarde; P Schultz; J-C Ferrié; C Badoual; M Lapeyre; C Righini; B Barry; S Tronche; D De Raucourt Journal: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 2.080
Authors: A D'cruz; T Lin; A K Anand; D Atmakusuma; M J Calaguas; I Chitapanarux; B C Cho; B C Goh; Y Guo; W S Hsieh; C Hu; D Kwong; J C Lin; P J Lou; T Lu; K Prabhash; V Sriuranpong; P Tang; V V Vu; I Wahid; K K Ang; A T Chan Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Daniel M Trifiletti; Andrew Smith; Nandita Mitra; Surbhi Grover; John N Lukens; Roger B Cohen; Paul Read; William M Mendenhall; Alexander Lin; Samuel Swisher-McClure Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vanessa Milani; Ana Laura de Sene Amâncio Zara; Everton Nunes da Silva; Larissa Barbosa Cardoso; Maria Paula Curado; Rejane Faria Ribeiro-Rotta Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240