Jeremy Y Ng1, Ekaterina Dogadova2. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A high proportion of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, healthcare professionals generally have little knowledge about the safety and efficacy of these therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of HNC. RECENT FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for HNC CPGs published between 2009 and April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also were searched. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Of 305 unique search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 4 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 4 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (93.8%, 93.8%), clarity of presentation (88.2%, 64.6%), stakeholder involvement (68.8%, 39.6%), rigor of development (58.3%, 34.6%), editorial independence (42.7%, 42.7%), and applicability (51.6%, 19.8%). Quality varied within and between CPGs. Highly scoring CPGs serve as evidence-based resources that clinicians can use to inform their patients about safe and effective CAM use; CPGs achieving variable or lower scores could be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development/implementation tools. Future research should identify CAM therapies supported by sufficient evidence to be included as part of HNC CPGs.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A high proportion of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, healthcare professionals generally have little knowledge about the safety and efficacy of these therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of HNC. RECENT FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for HNC CPGs published between 2009 and April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also were searched. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Of 305 unique search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 4 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 4 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (93.8%, 93.8%), clarity of presentation (88.2%, 64.6%), stakeholder involvement (68.8%, 39.6%), rigor of development (58.3%, 34.6%), editorial independence (42.7%, 42.7%), and applicability (51.6%, 19.8%). Quality varied within and between CPGs. Highly scoring CPGs serve as evidence-based resources that clinicians can use to inform their patients about safe and effective CAM use; CPGs achieving variable or lower scores could be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development/implementation tools. Future research should identify CAM therapies supported by sufficient evidence to be included as part of HNC CPGs.
Entities:
Keywords:
AGREE II; Clinical practice guideline; Complementary and alternative medicine; Head and neck cancer; Systematic review
Authors: Tarren Vyas; Robert D Hart; Jonathan R Trites; Timothy J Philips; Kathleen E M Archibald; Judith E Phillips; S Mark Taylor Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.147