Max Shin1, Aman Prasad1, Gabriel R Arguelles1, Jonathan J Wakim1, Kevin Chorath2, Alvaro Moreira3, Karthik Rajasekaran2,4. 1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health-San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States. 4. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to use the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool to assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the workup and management of paediatric neck masses. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and grey literature were searched to identify CPG incorporating paediatric neck masses. Four authors with previous training of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool evaluated the included studies. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. The highest scoring domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (74.0 ± 4.5) and 'Clarity of Presentation' (72.9 ± 6.3). The lowest scoring domains were 'Rigour and Development' (18.8 ± 7.5) and 'Applicability' (23.7 ± 6.1). One study was 'High' quality, three received scores of 'Average' and five were found to be 'Low' quality. CONCLUSION: The majority of paediatric neck mass CPGs were low to average quality. The domains in need of greatest improvement were 'Rigour and Development' and 'Applicability', suggesting significant concerns in current CPGs focused on paediatric neck masses.
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to use the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool to assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the workup and management of paediatric neck masses. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and grey literature were searched to identify CPG incorporating paediatric neck masses. Four authors with previous training of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool evaluated the included studies. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. The highest scoring domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (74.0 ± 4.5) and 'Clarity of Presentation' (72.9 ± 6.3). The lowest scoring domains were 'Rigour and Development' (18.8 ± 7.5) and 'Applicability' (23.7 ± 6.1). One study was 'High' quality, three received scores of 'Average' and five were found to be 'Low' quality. CONCLUSION: The majority of paediatric neck mass CPGs were low to average quality. The domains in need of greatest improvement were 'Rigour and Development' and 'Applicability', suggesting significant concerns in current CPGs focused on paediatric neck masses.