Dataset Information

Critical evaluation of oncology clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Significant concerns exist regarding the content and reliability of oncology clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust" established standards for developing trustworthy CPGs. By using these standards as a benchmark, we sought to evaluate recent oncology guidelines.

Methods

CPGs and consensus statements addressing the screening, evaluation, or management of the four leading causes of cancer-related mortality in the United States (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers) published between January 2005 and December 2010 were identified. A standardized scoring system based on the eight IOM standards was used to critically evaluate the methodology, content, and disclosure policies of CPGs. All CPGs were given two scores; points were awarded for eight standards and 20 subcriteria.

Results

No CPG fully met all the IOM standards. The average overall scores were 2.75 of 8 possible standards and 8.24 of 20 possible subcriteria. Less than half the CPGs were based on a systematic review. Only half the CPG panels addressed conflicts of interest. Most did not comply with standards for inclusion of patient and public involvement in the development or review process, nor did they specify their process for updating. CPGs were most consistent with IOM standards for transparency, articulation of recommendations, and use of external review.

Conclusion

The vast majority of oncology CPGs fail to meet the IOM standards for trustworthy guidelines. On the basis of these results, there is still much to be done to make guidelines as methodologically sound and evidence-based as possible.

SUBMITTER: Reames BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5073383 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To report the quality and clinical heterogeneity of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on nutrition in pregnancy. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched. The following aspects related to nutrition in pregnancy were addressed: specific requirements during pregnancy, description of a balanced diet, weight gain, prevention of food-borne, nutrition in peculiar sub-groups of women, and maternal or perinatal outcomes. The assessment of the risk of bias and quality assessment of the included CPGs were performed using “The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE II)” tool divided in six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used to summarize the scores across all the guidelines per domain. The quality of each guideline was computed using the scoring system proposed by Amer et al. A cut-off of >60% was sued to define a CGP as recommended. Results: Eighteen CPGs were included. There was a substantial heterogeneity in the recommended dose for vitamins, folic acid, and micronutrient intake during pregnancy among the different published CPGs. 27.8% (5/18) of the CPGs recommended a daily intake of folic acid of 200 mcg, 38.8% (7/18) 400 mcg, 16.7% (3/18) 600 mcg while the remaining CPGs suggested dose between 400 and 600–800 mc per day. Adequate maternal hydration was advocated in the large majority of included CPGs, but a specific amount of water intake was not reported in 83.3% (15/18) cases. There was also significant heterogeneity in various other aspects of nutrition recommendation among the different CPGs, including gestational weight gain (55.5%), prevention of food-borne diseases in pregnancy (72.2%), nutrition in particular groups of pregnant women (83.3%), maternal and perinatal outcomes (72.2%). The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 65% but only half scored more than 60%. Conclusion: The published CPGs on nutrition in pregnancy show an overall good methodology, but also a substantial heterogeneity as regard as different major aspects on nutrition in pregnancy.

Project description:BackgroundOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.Materials and methodsWe conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.ResultsDuring the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).ConclusionMedical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.Implications for practiceOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.