Cargando…

A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis

Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin that can be effectively treated with several lesion- and field-directed treatments. Clinical practice guidelines assist physicians in choosing the appropriate treatment options for their patients. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and eva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wessely, Anja, Steeb, Theresa, Heppt, Franz, Hornung, Annkathrin, Kaufmann, Matthias D., Koch, Elias A. T., Toussaint, Frédéric, Erdmann, Michael, Berking, Carola, Heppt, Markus V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33617511
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28010093
_version_ 1783668318613274624
author Wessely, Anja
Steeb, Theresa
Heppt, Franz
Hornung, Annkathrin
Kaufmann, Matthias D.
Koch, Elias A. T.
Toussaint, Frédéric
Erdmann, Michael
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
author_facet Wessely, Anja
Steeb, Theresa
Heppt, Franz
Hornung, Annkathrin
Kaufmann, Matthias D.
Koch, Elias A. T.
Toussaint, Frédéric
Erdmann, Michael
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
author_sort Wessely, Anja
collection PubMed
description Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin that can be effectively treated with several lesion- and field-directed treatments. Clinical practice guidelines assist physicians in choosing the appropriate treatment options for their patients. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the methodological quality of currently available guidelines for AK. Guidelines published within the last 5 years were identified in a systematic search of guideline databases, Medline and Embase. Then, six independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality using the tools “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation” (AGREE II) and “Recommendation EXcellence” (AGREE-REX). The Kruskal–Wallis (H) test was used to explore differences among subgroups and Spearman’s correlation to examine the relationship between individual domains. Three guidelines developed by consortia from Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom were eligible for the evaluation. The German guideline achieved the highest scores, fulfilling 65 to 92% of the criteria in AGREE II and 67 to 84% in AGREE-REX, whereas the Canadian guideline scored 31 to 71% of the criteria in AGREE II and 33 to 46% in AGREE-REX. The domains “stakeholder involvement“ and “values and preferences“ were identified as methodological weaknesses requiring particular attention and improvement in future guideline efforts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7985770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79857702021-03-24 A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis Wessely, Anja Steeb, Theresa Heppt, Franz Hornung, Annkathrin Kaufmann, Matthias D. Koch, Elias A. T. Toussaint, Frédéric Erdmann, Michael Berking, Carola Heppt, Markus V. Curr Oncol Article Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin that can be effectively treated with several lesion- and field-directed treatments. Clinical practice guidelines assist physicians in choosing the appropriate treatment options for their patients. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the methodological quality of currently available guidelines for AK. Guidelines published within the last 5 years were identified in a systematic search of guideline databases, Medline and Embase. Then, six independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality using the tools “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation” (AGREE II) and “Recommendation EXcellence” (AGREE-REX). The Kruskal–Wallis (H) test was used to explore differences among subgroups and Spearman’s correlation to examine the relationship between individual domains. Three guidelines developed by consortia from Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom were eligible for the evaluation. The German guideline achieved the highest scores, fulfilling 65 to 92% of the criteria in AGREE II and 67 to 84% in AGREE-REX, whereas the Canadian guideline scored 31 to 71% of the criteria in AGREE II and 33 to 46% in AGREE-REX. The domains “stakeholder involvement“ and “values and preferences“ were identified as methodological weaknesses requiring particular attention and improvement in future guideline efforts. MDPI 2021-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7985770/ /pubmed/33617511 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28010093 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wessely, Anja
Steeb, Theresa
Heppt, Franz
Hornung, Annkathrin
Kaufmann, Matthias D.
Koch, Elias A. T.
Toussaint, Frédéric
Erdmann, Michael
Berking, Carola
Heppt, Markus V.
A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title_full A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title_fullStr A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title_full_unstemmed A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title_short A Critical Appraisal of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines for Actinic Keratosis
title_sort critical appraisal of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for actinic keratosis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33617511
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28010093
work_keys_str_mv AT wesselyanja acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT steebtheresa acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hepptfranz acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hornungannkathrin acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT kaufmannmatthiasd acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT kocheliasat acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT toussaintfrederic acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT erdmannmichael acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT berkingcarola acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hepptmarkusv acriticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT wesselyanja criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT steebtheresa criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hepptfranz criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hornungannkathrin criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT kaufmannmatthiasd criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT kocheliasat criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT toussaintfrederic criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT erdmannmichael criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT berkingcarola criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis
AT hepptmarkusv criticalappraisalofevidenceandconsensusbasedguidelinesforactinickeratosis