Systematic review of shared decision‐making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision‐making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs). METHODS: Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88. RESULTS: SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0–2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0–3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0–1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5–4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0–1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0–3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0–2, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence‐based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.