Emma De Ravin1,2, Joseph Lu3, Mandy Salmon2, Sanjena Venkatesh2, Dominic Romeo2, Alvaro Moreira4, Karthik Rajasekaran5,6. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Walnut Street, 18th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 2. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health-San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Walnut Street, 18th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. karthik.rajasekaran@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 6. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. karthik.rajasekaran@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) has a significant global disease burden and its treatment is complex. Multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to improve management of these patient populations; however, no study has systematically reviewed the quality and rigor in development of these guidelines. Here, we identify and systematically appraise existing recommendations for the management of recurrent HNC and assess their clinical applicability, methodologic rigor, and transparency of development. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted for recurrent HNC CPGs. Each guideline was scored independently by four reviewers trained in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) methodology. Salient recommendations from the selected guidelines were summarized. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 1799 articles; after iterative title/abstract and full text screening, five remaining guidelines met inclusion criteria. CPGs received the lowest scores in 'Applicability' and 'Rigor of development,' with scores of 12.9% and 22.3%, respectively. Overall quality of available guidelines for management of recurrent HNC is poor, with an average overall scaled domain score of 40.9% (± 11.0), and with four guidelines (80.0%) receiving an overall quality rating of 'low'. CONCLUSION: We found significant variability in quality and overall lack of methodologic rigor among available guidelines for the management of recurrent HNC. Future groups developing recommendations for this purpose should implement the AGREE II framework to improve quality and standardization of their guidelines.
PURPOSE: Recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) has a significant global disease burden and its treatment is complex. Multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to improve management of these patient populations; however, no study has systematically reviewed the quality and rigor in development of these guidelines. Here, we identify and systematically appraise existing recommendations for the management of recurrent HNC and assess their clinical applicability, methodologic rigor, and transparency of development. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted for recurrent HNC CPGs. Each guideline was scored independently by four reviewers trained in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) methodology. Salient recommendations from the selected guidelines were summarized. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 1799 articles; after iterative title/abstract and full text screening, five remaining guidelines met inclusion criteria. CPGs received the lowest scores in 'Applicability' and 'Rigor of development,' with scores of 12.9% and 22.3%, respectively. Overall quality of available guidelines for management of recurrent HNC is poor, with an average overall scaled domain score of 40.9% (± 11.0), and with four guidelines (80.0%) receiving an overall quality rating of 'low'. CONCLUSION: We found significant variability in quality and overall lack of methodologic rigor among available guidelines for the management of recurrent HNC. Future groups developing recommendations for this purpose should implement the AGREE II framework to improve quality and standardization of their guidelines.