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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langton, J M, Drew, A K, Mellish, L, Olivier, J, Ward, R L, Pearson, S-A
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