Dataset Information

Appraisal of International Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma Management using the AGREE II assessment tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The evidence base behind new melanoma treatments is rapidly accumulating. This is not necessarily reflected in current guidance. A recent UK-based expert consensus statement, published in JPRAS, has called for updates to the widely accepted 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for melanoma (NG14). We aimed to compare the quality of NG14 to all other melanoma guidelines published since.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, and online clinical practice guideline databases to identify melanoma guidelines published between 29th July 2015 and 23rd August 2021 providing recommendations for adjuvant treatment, radiotherapy, surgical management, or follow-up care. Three authors independently assessed the quality of identified guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) assessment tool, which measures six domains of guideline development. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W).

Results

Twenty-nine guidelines were included and appraised with excellent concordance (Kendall's W for overall guideline score 0.88, p<0.001). Overall, melanoma guidelines scored highly in the domains of 'Scope and purpose' and 'Clarity of presentation', but poorly in the 'Applicability' domain. The NICE guideline on melanoma (NG14) achieved the best overall scores.

Conclusion

Melanoma treatment has advanced since NG14 was published, however, the NICE melanoma guideline is of higher quality than more recent alternatives. The planned update of NG14 in 2022 is in demand.

SUBMITTER: Jacklin C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8732330 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:ObjectiveTo explore the current Chinese and English guidelines of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children and provide a summary of the recommendations of the guidelines.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted on databases, including Pubmed, SinoMed, Wangfang Data, CHKD,VIP, NICE, WHO, GIN and Medliveto retrieve data of the clinical practice guidelines on UTI from the establishment of the database to June 2020. Four assessors assessed the quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and evaluated the specific recommendations in guidelines.Results(1) Nine guidelines including two from the USA (AAP and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis) and the remaining from EAU/ESPU, SINEPE, KHA-CARI, CPS, ISPN, NICE and CMA-CSP were explored. (2) The AGREE II evaluation demonstrated higher scores of UTI guidelines in terms of 'scope and purpose' (72.99%±11.19%) and 'clarity of presentation' (75.62%±7.75%), whereas the average scores were lower in the aspect of 'stakeholder involvement' (35.49%±14.41%), 'rigour of development' (37.05%±10.05%), 'applicability' (37.75%±11.98%) and 'editorial independence' (43.06%±48.14%). The average scores of the guidelines were as follows: SINePe (72.57%), CMA-CSP (62.96%), EAU/ESPU (59.61%), AAP (56.86%), NICE (47.54%), CPS (40.93%), KHA-CARI (38.86%), ISPN (38.63%) and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis (34.72%). (3) All the selected guidelines basically reached a consensus on urine sample retention methods in older children, the antibiotic treatment course and renal and bladder ultrasonography application but lacked a conclusion on the determination of urine culture results, the choice of voiding cystourethrography and Tc-99mdimercaptosuccinicacid, and antibiotic prophylaxis.ConclusionThere remains a need to improve the quality of guidelinesfor UTI in clinical practice. Existing controversies on the current guidelines of UTI in some recommendations warrant further exploration to provide more evidence on formulating more unified and practical guidelines in the future.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this research, as it did not include patients or patient data.