Dataset Information

Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Steeb T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7085474 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument.

Steeb Theresa T Hayani Kinan M KM Förster Paul P Liegl Raffael R Toussaint Frédéric F Schlaak Max M Schlaak Max M Berking Carola C Heppt Markus V MV

Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 20200208 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was carried out in guideline databases, ...[more]

PMID: 32036455

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this review are to: 1) appraise the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) providing pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological intervention recommendations, and 2) summarize the recommendations provided by the included CPGs and compare them where possible.MethodsA systematic search was performed. Three trained appraisers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs using a validated and reliable instrument, the Appraisal of Guidelines in Research and Evaluation II. Six domains were considered: 1) score and purpose; 2) stakeholder involvement; 3) rigor of development; 4) clarity of presentation; 5) applicability; and 6) editorial independence. The domains consist of a total of 23 items each scored on a 7-point scale. High quality CPGs were identified if they had a domain score above 60% in rigor of development, and two other domains.ResultsOf the three included CPGs, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) CPGs were considered to be of high quality, but the German Society for Pediatric Rheumatology was of lower quality. Domains one to four had high domain scores across the guidelines (mean (standard deviation)): 72.76 (13.80); 66.67 (9.81); 64.67 (7.77); and 87.00 (9.64), respectively. Lower scores were obtained for applicability (14.00 (5.57)) and editorial independence (43.44 (7.02)). Recommendations varied across CPGs due to differences in context, target audience (general practitioners, rheumatologists, and other multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) and patients' disease presentations. Despite this variability, progression of pharmacological treatment did not conflict between CPGs. Recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions were vague and the interventions considered varied between CPGs.ConclusionsOverall, recommendations were based on a paucity of evidence and weak study designs. Further research is needed on interventions in JIA, as well as higher quality CPGs to facilitate implementation of the best evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice.

Project description:PurposeThere has been growing amount of evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) on oncological patients' cancer-related health outcomes. Although guidelines on cancer rehabilitation are widely available, the varying quality and practical applicability limited the clinical application of PA recommendations. To assist the future development of guidelines, in this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and applicability of current cancer rehabilitation guidelines with PA recommendations and synthesized PA recommendations for the oncological population.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and guideline repositories to identify guidelines with PA recommendations for cancer patients from 1 May 2016 to 1 June 2022. The quality of included guidelines was appraised using the tools "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation Excellence). PA recommendations were synthesized from the guidelines.ResultsSixteen guidelines were extracted. The AGREE II domain "clarity of presentation" obtained the highest score, while "applicability" received the lowest, ranging from 33.33% to 98.58%. The AGREE-REX domains "values and preferences" and "implementability" generally scored lower and ranged from 45.83% to 74.17% and 55% to 88.33%, respectively. Eight high-quality guidelines were identified, and the included PA recommendations were extracted.ConclusionThere were some disparities in the quality of the included guidelines. Methodological weaknesses were commonly observed in domains "applicability," "values and preferences," and "implementability"; particular attention should be given to these domains when developing future guidelines. Furthermore, this analysis indicated that more rigorous, high-quality studies are needed to generate evidence for supporting PA recommendations and provide guidance on research gaps in the field of cancer rehabilitation.

Dataset Information

Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument.

Publications

Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets