@misc{10481/64442,
year = {2020},
month = {8},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10481/64442},
abstract = {Background: High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements
(CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs
and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.
Methods: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment
were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases
(MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases
and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate
assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (%
of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively.
Results: There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic
reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9e74.3) and the median
overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5e84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting
was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p ¼ 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs
44.5%; p ¼ 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used
systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p ¼ 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%;
p ¼ 0.001).
Conclusion: The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic
reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.},
organization = {Beatriz Galindo (senor modality) Program by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Spanish Government},
publisher = {Elsevier},
keywords = {Breast cancer},
keywords = {Treatment},
keywords = {Clinical practice guidelines},
keywords = {Guidelines},
keywords = {Consensus},
keywords = {Agree II},
keywords = {Right},
keywords = {Appraisal instruments},
keywords = {Quality of guidelines},
title = {Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review},
doi = {10.1016/j.breast.2020.07.011},
author = {Maes Carballo, Marta and Mignini, Luciano and Martín Díaz, Manuel and Bueno Cavanillas, Aurora and Saeed Khan, Khalid},
}