Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMaes Carballo, Marta
dc.contributor.authorMignini, Luciano
dc.contributor.authorMartín Díaz, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorBueno Cavanillas, Aurora 
dc.contributor.authorSaeed Khan, Khalid 
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-23T11:43:16Z
dc.date.available2020-11-23T11:43:16Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-10
dc.identifier.citationMaes-Carballo, M., Mignini, L., Martín-Díaz, M., Bueno-Cavanillas, A., & Khan, K. S. (2020). Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review. The Breast. [DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.07.011]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/64442
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipBeatriz Galindo (senor modality) Program by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Spanish Governmentes_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectBreast canceres_ES
dc.subjectTreatment es_ES
dc.subjectClinical practice guidelineses_ES
dc.subjectGuidelineses_ES
dc.subjectConsensuses_ES
dc.subjectAgree IIes_ES
dc.subjectRightes_ES
dc.subjectAppraisal instrumentses_ES
dc.subjectQuality of guidelineses_ES
dc.titleQuality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic reviewes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.breast.2020.07.011
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES


Files in this item

[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España