Qianrui Li1,2, Wenxiu Hou1, Ling Li2, Minggang Su1, Yan Ren2, Wen Wang2, Kang Zou2, Rong Tian3, Xin Sun4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. rongtiannuclear@126.com. 4. Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. sunx79@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence. METHODS: The latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures. RESULTS: Forty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median. CONCLUSION: The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture. KEY POINTS: • The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence. METHODS: The latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures. RESULTS: Forty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median. CONCLUSION: The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture. KEY POINTS: • The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.
Authors: Brittany U Burda; Susan L Norris; Haley K Holmer; Lauren A Ogden; M E Beth Smith Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lucy C Pike; Christopher M Thomas; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Andriana Michaelidou; Tony Greener; Elizabeth Miles; David Eaton; Sally F Barrington Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Steven E Hanna; Julie Makarski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-05-31 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Satoshi Minoshima; Nicolaas I Bohnen; Kevin J Donohoe; Norman L Foster; Peter Herscovitch; Jason H Karlawish; Christopher C Rowe; Maria C Carrillo; Dean M Hartley; Saima Hedrick; Virginia Pappas; William H Thies Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 21.566