Hong-Juan Zhou1, Li-Jin Deng1, Tao Wang2, Jin-Xiu Chen1, Su-Zhen Jiang3, Liu Yang1, Fang Liu1, Mei-Hua Weng1, Jing-Wen Hu1, Jing-Yu Tan4. 1. Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 1 Qiu Yang Road, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 2. College of Nursing and Midwifery Brisbane Center, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. 3. Rehabilitation Hospital affiliated with Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 4. College of Nursing and Midwifery Brisbane Center, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. benjamin.tan@cdu.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals. METHODS: Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was "clarity of presentation" (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was "applicability" (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as "strongly recommended," three were assessed as "recommended with modifications," and two were deemed as "not recommended." CONCLUSION: Considering that the two "strongly recommended" guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancerpatients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals. METHODS: Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancerpatients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was "clarity of presentation" (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was "applicability" (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as "strongly recommended," three were assessed as "recommended with modifications," and two were deemed as "not recommended." CONCLUSION: Considering that the two "strongly recommended" guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancerpatients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020).
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: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mercè Planas; Julia Álvarez-Hernández; Miguel León-Sanz; Sebastián Celaya-Pérez; Krysmarú Araujo; Abelardo García de Lorenzo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Christopher J Coroneos; Sophocles H Voineskos; Sylvie D Cornacchi; Charlie H Goldsmith; Teegan A Ignacy; Achilleas Thoma Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sanjeeve Sabharwal; Vanash Patel; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Ali Kirresh; Ara Darzi; John C Chambers; Iqbal Malik; Jaspal S Kooner; Thanos Athanasiou Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 5.344