Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemEditorial
John Wiley & Sons
Materia
AGREE II Breast cancer screening Clinical practice guidelines Consensus statements Quality RIGHT
Fecha
2021-12-23Referencia bibliográfica
Maes-Carballo, M... [et al.] (2021). Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting. European Journal of Cancer Care, e13540. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13540]
Patrocinador
Ministry of Science, Innovation, and University of Granada/Consorcio de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Andalucia (CBUA)Resumen
Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are
being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review
has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting.
Methods: A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science,
Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was
performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following
prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum
score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually,
extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively.
Results: Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile
range [IQR] 39–63) and 48% (IQR 35–65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and
20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that
deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and
reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored
better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004).
Conclusion: BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More
than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic
reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.