Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for adult obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are crucial in standardizing the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults. However, there has been insufficient evaluation of the overall quality of CPGs for adult OSA. This review aimed to comprehensively assess the overall quality of CPGs in the field of adult OSA.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on various literature databases, guideline-related databases, and academic websites from January 2013 to December 2023 to select CPGs relevant to adult OSA. The methodological and reporting quality of the eligible CPGs were thoroughly appraised by three reviewers using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist, respectively.

RESULTS

This review included 44 CPGs, consisting of 42 CPGs in English and 2 CPGs in Chinese. The assessment of methodological quality revealed that four domains attained an average standardized score above 60%. Among the domains, "clarity of presentation" received the highest standardized score of 85.10%, while the lowest standardized score was observed in the "rigor of development" domain with the value of 56.77%. The evaluation of reporting quality indicated an overall reporting rate of 51.30% for the eligible CPGs, with only three domains achieving an average reporting rate higher than 50%. The domain with the highest reporting rate was "basic information" at 60.61%, while the domain with the lowest reporting rate was "review and quality assurance" at 15.91%. Furthermore, a significantly positive correlation was found between the AGREE II standardized scores and the RIGHT reporting rates (r = 0.808, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of the currently available guidelines for adult OSA demonstrated considerable variability. Researchers should prioritize the utilization of evidence-based methods and adhere to the items listed in the RIGHT checklist when developing CPGs to enhance efficient clinical decision-making and promote the translation of evidence into practice.

[Ethics of care: Assessment of the ethical issues in the protocols or consensuses on mechanical restraint in force in Spain]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain.

METHOD

Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II.

RESULTS

The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

AIM

Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress of cancer patients using the AGREE II instrument

Objective

This study aimed to assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress among cancer patients and provide users with recommendations for coping with psychological distress.

Methods

A systematic search of relevant clinical practice guidelines was undertaken to identify and select the clinical practice guidelines related to psychological distress among cancer patients. Literature databases were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database, the Cumulative Index to Nursing &amp; Allied Health Literature, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang and Weipu Journal Database. The guideline databases include Yimaitong Guidelines Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate GuidelinesNetwork, American Psychological Association, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO). Four independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

Results

Six clinical practice guidelines were included and assessed for critical evaluation. The median score for the scope and purpose domain was 71.5% (IQR 64%-77.25%), the stakeholder involvement domain was 65% (IQR 47.5%-74.5%), the rigour of the development domain was 61.5% (IQR 45.5%-85.25%), the clarity of the presentation domain was 91% (IQR 72.25%-94.5%), the applicability domain was 70% (IQR 33%-78.75%), and the editorial independence domain was 48.84% (IQR 61.75%-95%). Four guidelines (ASCO, 2014; Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology, 2015; NCCN, 2020, and CCO, 2016) were classified as “recommended,” and the remaining (European Palliative Care Research Collaborative and Chinese Psychosocial Oncology Society) were “recommended with modifications,” especially in the domains of Stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability. The inter-rater consistency of each domain showed moderate level (0.52–0.90) analyzing by intraclass correlation.

Conclusions

The clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress among cancer patients varied in quality, and there were discrepancies in terms of the recommendations and recommendation grades. These findings could contribute to improving the quality of clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress, and enable the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for cancer patients.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020209204.

Self-Managed Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Breast Cancer Survivors: Systematic Quality Appraisal and Content Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background

A growing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding non-pharmacological interventions for breast cancer survivors are available. However, given the limitations in guideline development methodologies and inconsistent recommendations, it remains uncertain how best to design and implement non-pharmacological strategies to tailor interventions for breast cancer survivors with varied health conditions, healthcare needs, and preferences.

Aim

To critically appraise and summarise available non-pharmacological interventions for symptom management and health promotion that can be self-managed by breast cancer survivors based on the recommendations of the CPGs.

Methods

CPGs, which were published between January 2016 and September 2021 and described non-pharmacological interventions for breast cancer survivors, were systematically searched in six electronic databases, nine relevant guideline databases, and five cancer care society websites. The quality of the included CPGs was assessed by four evaluators using The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, second edition tool. Content analysis was conducted to synthesise the characteristics of the non-pharmacological interventions recommended by the included CPGs, such as the intervention’s form, duration and frequency, level of evidence, grade of recommendation, and source of evidence.

Results

A total of 14 CPGs were included. Among which, only five were appraised as high quality. The “range and purpose” domain had the highest standardized percentage (84.61%), while the domain of “applicability” had the lowest (51.04%). Five CPGs were rated “recommended”, seven were “recommended with modifications”, and the other two were rated “not recommended”. The content analysis findings summarised some commonly recommended self-managed non-pharmacological interventions in the 14 guidelines, including physical activity/exercise, meditation, hypnosis, yoga, music therapy, stress management, relaxation, massage and acupressure. Physical activity/exercise was the most frequently recommended approach to managing psychological and physical symptoms by the included guidelines. However, significant variations in the level of evidence and grade of recommendation were identified among the included CPGs.

Conclusion

Recommendations for the self-managed non-pharmacological interventions were varied and limited among the 14 CPGs, and some were based on medium- and low-quality evidence. More rigorous methods are required to develop high-quality CPGs to guide clinicians in offering high-quality and tailored breast cancer survivorship care.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting.

METHODS

A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39-63) and 48% (IQR 35-65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.

A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women. The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on breast cancer has been shown to be heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of breast cancer CPGs published in years 2018-2020, using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) as well as websites of guideline organizations for CPGs on breast cancer published between 2018 and 2020. We used the RIGHT checklist to evaluate the reporting quality of the included guidelines by assessing whether the CPGs adhered to each item of the checklist and calculated the proportions of appropriately reported RIGHT checklist items. We also presented the adherence reporting rates for each guideline and the mean rates for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.

Results

A total of 45 guidelines were included. Eighteen (40.0%) guidelines had an overall reporting rate below 50% and only three (6.7%) reported more than 80% of the items. The domains “Basic information” and “Background” had the highest reporting rates (75.9% and 62.5%, respectively). The mean reporting rates of the domains “Evidence”, “Recommendation”, “Review and quality assurance”, “Funding and declaration and management of interests” and “Other information” were 42.7%, 53.0%, 33.3%, 45.0%, and 44.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

The reporting quality varied among guidelines for breast cancer, showing the need for improvement in reporting the contents. Guideline developers should pay more attention to reporting the evidence, review and quality assurance, and funding and declaration and management of interests in future.

International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment

OBJECTIVES

To identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people.

DESIGN

Systematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation.

SETTING

Six databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached.

PARTICIPANTS

CPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development.

INTERVENTION

Any health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients.

RESULTS

Twelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019154361.

Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19

Background

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic negatively affects children’s health. Many guidelines have been developed for treating children with COVID-19. The quality of the existing guidelines and the consistency of recommendations remains unknown. Therefore, we aim to review the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for children with COVID-19 systematically.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, guideline-related websites, and Google. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. The consistency of recommendations across the guidelines and their supporting evidence were analyzed.

Results

Twenty guidelines were included in this study. The mean AGREE II score and mean RIGHT reporting rate of the included guidelines were 37% (range, 22–62%) and 52% (range, 31–89%), respectively. As for methodological quality, no guideline was classified as high, one guideline (5%) moderate, and 19 (95%) low. In terms of reporting quality, one guideline (5%) was rated as high, 12 guidelines (60%) moderate, and seven (35%) low. Among included guidelines, recommendations varied greatly in the use of remdesivir (recommend: 25%, not recommend: 45%, not report: 30%), interferon (recommend: 15%, not recommend: 50%, not report: 35%), glucocorticoids (recommend: 50%, not recommend: 20%, not report: 30%), and intravenous immune globulin (recommend: 35%, not recommend: 30%, not report: 35%). None of the guidelines cited clinical trials from children with COVID-19.

Conclusions

The methodological and reporting quality of guidelines for treating children with COVID-19 was not high. Recommendations were inconsistent across different guidelines. The supporting evidence from children with COVID-19 was very limited.