Cargando…
The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up?
BACKGROUND: The Internet is a popular medium for disseminating information relevant to oncology practitioners. Despite the widespread use of web-based guidelines and protocols, the quality of these resources has not been evaluated. This study addresses this gap. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21934686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.378 |
_version_ | 1782215621608472576 |
---|---|
author | Langton, J M Drew, A K Mellish, L Olivier, J Ward, R L Pearson, S-A |
author_facet | Langton, J M Drew, A K Mellish, L Olivier, J Ward, R L Pearson, S-A |
author_sort | Langton, J M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Internet is a popular medium for disseminating information relevant to oncology practitioners. Despite the widespread use of web-based guidelines and protocols, the quality of these resources has not been evaluated. This study addresses this gap. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the quality of breast and sarcoma guidelines and protocols according to six independent domains. The oncology resources were selected from eight websites developed for healthcare settings in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. RESULTS: Mean quality scores across domains were highly variable for both guidelines (29–73%) and protocols (31–71%). Guidelines scored highly in terms of articulating their Scope and Purpose (72.6±11.2%) but poorly with respect to Applicability in clinical practice (29.0±17.3%). Protocols scored highly on Clarity of Presentation (70.6±17.6%) but poorly in terms of the processes used to synthesise underlying evidence, develop, and update recommendations (30.8±20.0%). CONCLUSION: Our evaluation provides a quick reference tool for clinicians about the strengths and limitations of oncology resources across several major websites. Further, it supports resource developers in terms of where to direct efforts to enhance guideline and protocol development processes or the communication of these processes to end-users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3208501 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32085012012-10-11 The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? Langton, J M Drew, A K Mellish, L Olivier, J Ward, R L Pearson, S-A Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: The Internet is a popular medium for disseminating information relevant to oncology practitioners. Despite the widespread use of web-based guidelines and protocols, the quality of these resources has not been evaluated. This study addresses this gap. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the quality of breast and sarcoma guidelines and protocols according to six independent domains. The oncology resources were selected from eight websites developed for healthcare settings in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. RESULTS: Mean quality scores across domains were highly variable for both guidelines (29–73%) and protocols (31–71%). Guidelines scored highly in terms of articulating their Scope and Purpose (72.6±11.2%) but poorly with respect to Applicability in clinical practice (29.0±17.3%). Protocols scored highly on Clarity of Presentation (70.6±17.6%) but poorly in terms of the processes used to synthesise underlying evidence, develop, and update recommendations (30.8±20.0%). CONCLUSION: Our evaluation provides a quick reference tool for clinicians about the strengths and limitations of oncology resources across several major websites. Further, it supports resource developers in terms of where to direct efforts to enhance guideline and protocol development processes or the communication of these processes to end-users. Nature Publishing Group 2011-10-11 2011-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3208501/ /pubmed/21934686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.378 Text en Copyright © 2011 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Langton, J M Drew, A K Mellish, L Olivier, J Ward, R L Pearson, S-A The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title | The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title_full | The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title_fullStr | The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title_full_unstemmed | The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title_short | The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
title_sort | quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up? |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21934686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.378 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT langtonjm thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT drewak thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT mellishl thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT olivierj thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT wardrl thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT pearsonsa thequalityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT langtonjm qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT drewak qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT mellishl qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT olivierj qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT wardrl qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup AT pearsonsa qualityofwebbasedoncologyguidelinesandprotocolshowdointernationalsitesstackup |