The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey

A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.

METHODS

From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.

RESULTS

A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.

Quality and consistency of clinical practice guideline recommendations for PET/CT and PET: a systematic appraisal

OBJECTIVES

To systematically appraise the methodologies used for guidelines for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and to compare the consistency of these recommendations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, four guideline databases, and Google Scholar to identify evidence-based clinical practice guidelines pertaining to the use of PET, PET/computed tomography (CT), or PET/magnetic resonance in routine practice. We assessed the quality of each guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and compared recommendations regarding indications for 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT.

RESULTS

Thirty-five guidelines for PET imaging, published between 2008 and 2021, were included. These guidelines performed well in the domains of scope and purpose (median 80.6%, inter-quartile range [IQR] 77.8-83.3%) and clarity of presentation (median 75%, IQR 69.4-83.3%), but poorly in applicability (median 27.1%, IQR 22.9-37.5%). Recommendations for 48 indications in 13 cancers were compared. Considerable inconsistencies in the direction of whether to support the use of FDG PET/CT were observed in 10 (20.1%) indications pertaining to 8 cancer types: head and neck cancer (treatment response assessment), colorectal cancer (staging in patients with stages I-III disease), esophageal cancer (staging), breast cancer (restaging and treatment response assessment), cervical cancer (staging in patients with stage < IB2 disease and treatment response assessment), ovarian cancer (restaging), pancreatic cancer (diagnosis), and sarcoma (treatment response assessment).

CONCLUSIONS

Current guidelines for PET imaging vary in methodological quality and provided considerably inconsistent recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve adherence to guideline development methodologies, to synthesis high-quality evidence, and to adopt standard terminologies.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020184965.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Guidelines for PET imaging provide considerably inconsistent recommendations and vary in methodological quality. It is suggested that clinicians be critical of these recommendations when applying them in practice, that guideline developers adopt more rigorous development methodologies, and that researchers prioritize research gaps identified by current guidelines.

KEY POINTS

• PET guidelines vary in methodological quality and provided inconsistent recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve methodologies, synthesize high-quality evidence, and standardize terminologies. • Among six domains of methodological quality assessed by the AGREE II tool, guidelines for PET imaging performed well in scope and purpose (median 80.6%, inter-quartile range 77.8-83.3%) and clarity of presentation (75%, 69.4-83.3%), but poorly in applicability (27.1%, 22.9-37.5%). • Among the 48 recommendations (for 13 cancer types) compared, conflicts in the direction of whether to support FDG PET/CT use were observed in 10 (20.1%), for 8 cancer types (i.e., head and neck, colorectal, esophageal, breast, cervical, ovarian, pancreatic, and sarcoma).