학술논문
Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Cortés-Jofré M; Doctoral Program in Research Methodology and Public Health, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile.; Madera M; Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Research, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia. mmaderaa@unicartagena.edu.co.; Tirado-Amador L; Programa de Odontología, Grupo GINOUS, Universidad del Sinú, Cartagena, Colombia.; Asenjo-Lobos C; Centro de Estudios Clínicos, Instituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina (ICIM), Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad de Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.; Bonfill-Cosp X; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Institute of Biomedical Research Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.; Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Source
Publisher: Country of Publication: Italy NLM ID: 101247119 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1699-3055 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1699048X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Clin Transl Oncol Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument.
Results: Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8-100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8-96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1-92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50-100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5-87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8-100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as "recommended with modifications" for clinical use.
Conclusions: Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.
(© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO).)
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument.
Results: Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8-100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8-96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1-92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50-100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5-87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8-100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as "recommended with modifications" for clinical use.
Conclusions: Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.
(© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO).)