Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Maes-Carballo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9734419 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Maes-Carballo Marta M García-García Manuel M Martín-Díaz Manuel M Estrada-López Carlos Roberto CR Iglesias-Álvarez Andrés A Filigrana-Valle Carmen Milagros CM Khan Khalid Saeed KS Bueno-Cavanillas Aurora A

British journal of cancer 20221207 6

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 ...[more]

PMID: 36476659

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite the publication of hundreds of trials on gout and hyperuricemia, management of these conditions remains suboptimal. We aimed to assess the quality and consistency of guidance documents for gout and hyperuricemia.DesignSystematic review and quality assessment using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II methodology.Data sourcesPubMed and EMBASE (27 October 2016), two Chinese academic databases, eight guideline databases, and Google and Google scholar (July 2017).Eligibility criteriaWe included the latest version of international and national/regional clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperuricemia and gout, published in English or Chinese.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened searched items and extracted data. Four reviewers independently scored documents using AGREE II. Recommendations from all documents were tabulated and visualised in a coloured grid.ResultsTwenty-four guidance documents (16 clinical practice guidelines and 8 consensus statements) published between 2003 and 2017 were included. Included documents performed well in the domains of scope and purpose (median 85.4%, range 66.7%-100.0%) and clarity of presentation (median 79.2%, range 48.6%-98.6%), but unsatisfactory in applicability (median 10.9%, range 0.0%-66.7%) and editorial independence (median 28.1%, range 0.0%-83.3%). The 2017 British Society of Rheumatology guideline received the highest scores. Recommendations were concordant on the target serum uric acid level for long-term control, on some indications for urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and on the first-line drugs for ULT and for acute attack. Substantially inconsistent recommendations were provided for many items, especially for the timing of initiation of ULT and for treatment for asymptomatic hyperuricemia.ConclusionsMethodological quality needs improvement in guidance documents on gout and hyperuricemia. Evidence for certain clinical questions is lacking, despite numerous trials in this field. Promoting standard guidance development methods and synthesising high-quality clinical evidence are potential approaches to reduce recommendation inconsistencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42016046104.

Project description:ObjectivesTo appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19, summarise recommendations of rehabilitation assessments and interventions and evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase databases and five online guideline repositories: The National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and WHO were searched from their inception to August 2024. In addition, we reviewed reference lists of eligible citations and searched the grey literature on the relevant websites.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included CPGs and expert consensus statements which provided information about rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19. To be eligible, the CPGs and expert consensus statements were issued in English by a nationally or internationally recognised government authority, medical/academic society or organisation. If there were multiple versions of the guidelines, we included the latest one. The translations, interpretations and abstracts of guidelines were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisAll recommendations on rehabilitation assessments and interventions for COVID-19 were extracted and summarised. Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, and two other reviewers assessed the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement of included CPGs and expert consensus statements. We used the Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements.ResultsA total of 31 CPGs and expert consensus statements were included. 14 guidelines provided recommendations for rehabilitation assessments. At the early, development, critical and recovery stages of COVID-19, the most frequently recommended were exercise therapy (25.8%, 35.5%, 25.8% and 58.1%, respectively). According to AGREE II, 17 included guidelines were assessed as low methodological quality (35%-56%), 10 guidelines were rated as moderate quality (46%- 62%) and four had high quality (69%-79%). Among 31 eligible guidelines, the reporting rate of 22 items in the RIGHT checklist ranged from 10% to 100%. The included guidelines were consistent with the reference guidelines (80%-100%). Only one guideline existed minor (60%-80%) disagreements in respiratory muscle training relative to the reference guideline.ConclusionsRehabilitation assessments and interventions should be implemented consistently throughout the entire process of COVID-19. The recommendations should be tailored to each stage of COVID-19. The methodological and reporting qualities of several guidelines remain suboptimal. Therefore, developers should adhere strictly to the AGREE II standard and RIGHT checklist to formulate and publish CPGs and expert consensus statements with high quality.Prospero registration numberCRD42020190761.

Project description:Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an important stage between the normal cognitive decline of aging and dementia. The aim of this study was to compare and harmonize the recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of MCI based on current clinical practice guidelines. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Chinese Biological Medicine Database from their inception date to April 24, 2021 to identify all published guidelines on MCI. The qualities of the eligible guidelines were appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Results: Thirteen guidance documents (four guidelines and nine consensus statements) with specific recommendations were included. Nine guidelines and consensus statements covered the screening and diagnosis of MCI. The evaluation of the documents showed that neuropsychological testing and biomarker assessments were the most common recommendations for the diagnosis of MCI. Nine of the 13 guidance documents covered the treatment and management of MCI. The recommendations for the treatment and management were classified into four categories, namely: intervention for risk reduction, pharmacologic interventions, non-pharmacologic interventions, and counseling. Regarding pharmacological interventions, three guidelines recommend no pharmacologic intervention. The use of cholinesterase inhibitors for MCI is contraindicated in three guidance documents, whereas one proposes that cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine should be deprescribed. EHb761®, Chinese herbal decoctions, and Chinese traditional patent medicine are recommended in two documents. A total of seven guidance documents recommend non-pharmacological interventions, including physical activity interventions, cognitive interventions, dietary and nutritional interventions, and acupuncture. Conclusion: An updated search for possible evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of MCI is needed. Potentially effective diagnoses and treatments, either conventional or complementary, and alternative therapies should be highly valued and addressed in correlation with the supporting evidence.

Project description:ObjectivesManagement of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) encompasses a broad spectrum of practices, posing considerable complexity and variability. While guidelines have been established to augment the management quality of CCS, notable disparities persist across their recommendations. This study strives to scrutinize, compare, and reconcile these guideline recommendations pertaining to the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CCS patients. Our goal is to align these recommendations with contemporary clinical practices, thus laying a robust foundation for their pragmatic application in clinical settings.MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. The timeframe for this search spanned from their inception up to May 30, 2022, aiming to collate all published guidelines relevant to CCS. Subsequently, two independent reviewers undertook the task of appraising the quality of these guidelines by utilizing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.ResultsThe search yielded a total of 10,699 citations. Following a thorough evaluation, fourteen clinical practice guidelines and four consensus statements, each offering specific recommendations for CCS, were selected. The quality of these guidelines showcased a broad spectrum of variation. The domain of "presentation clarity" received the highest accolades, while "applicability" languished at the lower end of the scoring spectrum. On average, the guidelines attained a quality score denoting sufficiency. Furthermore, recommendations across different guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CCS displayed a striking level of divergence.ConclusionThe landscape of published CCS guidelines is marked by extensive variations in scope, quality, and recommendations. Hence, there is a compelling need for collaborative efforts amongst multidisciplinary professionals to forge comprehensive, higher-quality evidence-based guidelines; such a concerted approach is paramount to enhance treatment efficacy and health outcomes for patients grappling with CCS.

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 is a highly infectious disease, characterised by respiratory, physical and psychological dysfunctions. Rehabilitation could effectively alleviate the symptoms and promote recovery of the physical and mental health of patients with COVID-19. Recently, rehabilitation medical institutions have issued clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements involving recommendations for rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19. This systematic review aims to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of the guidance documents, evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations and summarise the recommendations with respect to rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19 to provide a quick reference for front-line clinicians, therapists and patients as well as reasonable suggestions for future guidelines.Methods and analysisThe electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and websites of governments or organisations (eg, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and WHO) will be searched for eligible CPGs and expert consensus statements from inception to August 2022. CPGs and expert consensus statements published in Chinese or English and presenting recommendations for modern functional rehabilitation techniques and/or traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation techniques for COVID-19 will be included. Reviews, interpretations, old versions of CPGs and expert consensus statements and those for the management of other diseases during the pandemic will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently review each article, extract data, appraise the methodological quality following the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II tool and assess the reporting quality with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement will be used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements. Agreement between reviewers will be calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. We will also summarise the recommendations for rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19. The results will be narratively described and presented as tables or figures.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not needed for this systematic review because information from published documents will be used. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Prospero registration numberCRD42020190761.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets