Cargando…
Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument
PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of diseases. In orphan conditions such as uveal melanoma (UM), guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance even in the absence of high-quality evidence. Here, we assessed the methodologi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7085474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32036455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w |
_version_ | 1783508942033256448 |
---|---|
author | Steeb, Theresa Hayani, Kinan M. Förster, Paul Liegl, Raffael Toussaint, Frédéric Schlaak, Max Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. |
author_facet | Steeb, Theresa Hayani, Kinan M. Förster, Paul Liegl, Raffael Toussaint, Frédéric Schlaak, Max Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. |
author_sort | Steeb, Theresa |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of diseases. In orphan conditions such as uveal melanoma (UM), guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance even in the absence of high-quality evidence. Here, we assessed the methodological quality and identified deficiencies of international guidelines on UM as a base for future guideline development. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in guideline databases, Medline and Embase until 27th May 2019 for guidelines on UM published between 2004 and 2019. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the identified guidelines using the instruments “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation EXcellence). Descriptive analysis was performed and subgroup differences were explored with the Kruskal–Wallis (H) test. The relationship between the individual domains and items of the instruments were examined using Spearman’s correlation. RESULTS: Five guidelines published from 2014 to 2018 by consortia of the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) were included. The highest scores were obtained by the UK guideline fulfilling 48–86% of criteria in AGREE II and 30–60% for AGREE-REX. All guidelines showed deficiencies in the domains “editorial independence”, “applicability”, and “recommendation”. Subgroup differences were identified only for the domain “editorial independence”. CONCLUSION: The UK guideline achieved the highest scores with both instruments and may serve as a basis for future guideline development in UM. The domains “editorial independence”, “recommendation”, and “applicability” were identified as methodological weaknesses and require particular attention and improvement in future guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7085474 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70854742020-03-23 Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument Steeb, Theresa Hayani, Kinan M. Förster, Paul Liegl, Raffael Toussaint, Frédéric Schlaak, Max Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Original Article – Clinical Oncology PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of diseases. In orphan conditions such as uveal melanoma (UM), guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance even in the absence of high-quality evidence. Here, we assessed the methodological quality and identified deficiencies of international guidelines on UM as a base for future guideline development. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in guideline databases, Medline and Embase until 27th May 2019 for guidelines on UM published between 2004 and 2019. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the identified guidelines using the instruments “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation EXcellence). Descriptive analysis was performed and subgroup differences were explored with the Kruskal–Wallis (H) test. The relationship between the individual domains and items of the instruments were examined using Spearman’s correlation. RESULTS: Five guidelines published from 2014 to 2018 by consortia of the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) were included. The highest scores were obtained by the UK guideline fulfilling 48–86% of criteria in AGREE II and 30–60% for AGREE-REX. All guidelines showed deficiencies in the domains “editorial independence”, “applicability”, and “recommendation”. Subgroup differences were identified only for the domain “editorial independence”. CONCLUSION: The UK guideline achieved the highest scores with both instruments and may serve as a basis for future guideline development in UM. The domains “editorial independence”, “recommendation”, and “applicability” were identified as methodological weaknesses and require particular attention and improvement in future guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-02-08 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7085474/ /pubmed/32036455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article – Clinical Oncology Steeb, Theresa Hayani, Kinan M. Förster, Paul Liegl, Raffael Toussaint, Frédéric Schlaak, Max Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title | Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title_full | Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title_fullStr | Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title_full_unstemmed | Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title_short | Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument |
title_sort | guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the agree ii and agree-rex instrument |
topic | Original Article – Clinical Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7085474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32036455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT steebtheresa guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT hayanikinanm guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT forsterpaul guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT lieglraffael guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT toussaintfrederic guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT schlaakmax guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT berkingcarola guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument AT hepptmarkusv guidelinesforuvealmelanomaacriticalappraisalofsystematicallyidentifiedguidelinesusingtheagreeiiandagreerexinstrument |