학술논문
Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) guidelines: a critical appraisal using AGREE II and AGREE-REX tool.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Santero M; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain. marilinasantero@gmail.com.; de Mas J; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.; Rifà B; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.; Clavero I; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.; Rexach I; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.; Bonfill Cosp X; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.; Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.; CIBER 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
Background: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has provided open-access guidelines for cancer since 2014. However, no independent assessment of their quality has been conducted to date. This study aimed to critically evaluate the quality of SEOM guidelines on cancer treatment.
Methods: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX tool was used to evaluate the qualities of the guidelines.
Results: We assessed 33 guidelines, with 84.8% rated as "high quality". The highest median standardized scores (96.3) were observed in the domain "clarity of presentation", whereas "applicability" was distinctively low (31.4), with only one guideline scoring above 60%. SEOM guidelines did not include the views and preferences of the target population, nor did specify updating methods.
Conclusions: Although developed with acceptable methodological rigor, SEOM guidelines could be improved in the future, particularly in terms of clinical applicability and patient perspectives.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)
Methods: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX tool was used to evaluate the qualities of the guidelines.
Results: We assessed 33 guidelines, with 84.8% rated as "high quality". The highest median standardized scores (96.3) were observed in the domain "clarity of presentation", whereas "applicability" was distinctively low (31.4), with only one guideline scoring above 60%. SEOM guidelines did not include the views and preferences of the target population, nor did specify updating methods.
Conclusions: Although developed with acceptable methodological rigor, SEOM guidelines could be improved in the future, particularly in terms of clinical applicability and patient perspectives.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)