Quality assessment of kidney cancer clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II instrument: A critical review

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines are expected to provide clinicians with explicit recommendations on how to manage health conditions and bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. However, the existing practice guidelines(CPGs) vary in quality. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of CPGs of kidney cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, and relevant guideline websites from their inception to April, 2018. We identified CGPs that provided recommendations on kidney cancer; 4 independent reviewers assessed the eligible CGPs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. The consistency of evaluations was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 13 kidney cancer CGPs were included. The mean scores for each AGREEII domain were as follows: scope and purpose—76.9%; clarity and presentation—76.4%; stakeholder involvement—62.8%; rigor of development—58.7%; editorial independence—53.7%; and applicability—49.4%. Two CPGs were rated as “recommended”; 8 as “recommended with modifications”; and 3 as “not recommended.” Seven grading systems were used by kidney cancer CGPs to rate the level of evidence and the strength of recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of CPGs of kidney cancer is suboptimal. AGREE II assessment results highlight the need to improve CPG development processes, editorial independence, and applicability in this field. It is necessary to develop a standardized grading system to provide clear information about the level of evidence and the strength of recommendation for future kidney cancer CGPs.