Cargando…

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the Internation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Yongjie, Lu, Jingli, Ma, Yanfang, Xi, Chen, Kang, Jian, Zhang, Qiwen, Jia, Xuedong, Liu, Kefeng, Du, Shuzhang, Kocher, Florian, Seeber, Andreas, Gridelli, Cesare, Provencio, Mariano, Seki, Nobuhiko, Tomita, Yusuke, Zhang, Xiaojian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8264321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34295664
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-405
_version_ 1783719528754053120
author Yang, Yongjie
Lu, Jingli
Ma, Yanfang
Xi, Chen
Kang, Jian
Zhang, Qiwen
Jia, Xuedong
Liu, Kefeng
Du, Shuzhang
Kocher, Florian
Seeber, Andreas
Gridelli, Cesare
Provencio, Mariano
Seki, Nobuhiko
Tomita, Yusuke
Zhang, Xiaojian
author_facet Yang, Yongjie
Lu, Jingli
Ma, Yanfang
Xi, Chen
Kang, Jian
Zhang, Qiwen
Jia, Xuedong
Liu, Kefeng
Du, Shuzhang
Kocher, Florian
Seeber, Andreas
Gridelli, Cesare
Provencio, Mariano
Seki, Nobuhiko
Tomita, Yusuke
Zhang, Xiaojian
author_sort Yang, Yongjie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument. METHODS: We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants. RESULTS: A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8264321
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82643212021-07-21 Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist Yang, Yongjie Lu, Jingli Ma, Yanfang Xi, Chen Kang, Jian Zhang, Qiwen Jia, Xuedong Liu, Kefeng Du, Shuzhang Kocher, Florian Seeber, Andreas Gridelli, Cesare Provencio, Mariano Seki, Nobuhiko Tomita, Yusuke Zhang, Xiaojian Transl Lung Cancer Res Original Article BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument. METHODS: We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants. RESULTS: A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer. AME Publishing Company 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8264321/ /pubmed/34295664 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-405 Text en 2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Yang, Yongjie
Lu, Jingli
Ma, Yanfang
Xi, Chen
Kang, Jian
Zhang, Qiwen
Jia, Xuedong
Liu, Kefeng
Du, Shuzhang
Kocher, Florian
Seeber, Andreas
Gridelli, Cesare
Provencio, Mariano
Seki, Nobuhiko
Tomita, Yusuke
Zhang, Xiaojian
Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title_full Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title_fullStr Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title_short Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist
title_sort evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the right checklist
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8264321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34295664
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-405
work_keys_str_mv AT yangyongjie evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT lujingli evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT mayanfang evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT xichen evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT kangjian evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT zhangqiwen evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT jiaxuedong evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT liukefeng evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT dushuzhang evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT kocherflorian evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT seeberandreas evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT gridellicesare evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT provenciomariano evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT sekinobuhiko evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT tomitayusuke evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist
AT zhangxiaojian evaluationofthereportingqualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesonlungcancerusingtherightchecklist