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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steeb, Theresa, Hayani, Kinan M., Förster, Paul, Liegl, Raffael, Toussaint, Frédéric, Schlaak, Max, Berking, Carola, Heppt, Markus V.
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