Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Wu, Xuan; Ding, Li; Chen, Haiyang; Zhou, Haofei; He, Zhen; Ma, Yanfang; Dong, Bingqi; Wu, Yingxi; Ejaz, Aslam; Almhanna, Khaldoun; Wang, Qiming

doi:10.21037/atm-21-2491

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on our findings on the reporting quality of the guidelines, cancer pain CPGs only reported less than 50% in the review and quality assurance domain, which is different from the findings for lung cancer and gastric cancer CPGs with poor reporting rates for evidence, funding and declaration and management of interests, review and quality assurance, and other information ( 37 , 38 ). The clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer reported more than 50% only in the background and basic information domain ( 39 ).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSeveral clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge.MethodsWe systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined.ResultsEighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%).ConclusionThe methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the independence of the guideline development may be questioned without transparent report of the funding source. Previous similar studies assessing the reporting rates of CPGs on other topics also demonstrated this reporting deficiency (11,13,43).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Therefore, in 2017, the international RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) Working Group produced a checklist to help guideline developers report CPGs, support peer reviewers and editors of journals when considering the guideline reports, and assist healthcare professionals comprehend and implement guidelines (10). The RIGHT checklist has been applied to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on many diseases (11)(12)(13)(14)(15). There is no evaluation study on the reporting quality of the CPGs in BLCA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

Cheng¹,

Wu²,

Song³

et al. 2022

Transl Androl Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was developed to improve the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). CPGs could provide the recommendations for key clinical issues with alternative care options and adherence to them could improve the outcomes. And, high reporting quality CPGs can assist health workers to incorporate the best evidence into the individual practice. There is no evaluation study on the reporting quality of CPGs in bladder cancer (BLCA). This study assessed the reporting quality of CPGs on BLCA and provided new insights for the development of CPGs in this disease.Methods: We conducted a systematic search in multiple literature databases, including PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) as well as the medical associations and websites of guideline development organizations. Relevant CPGs published between January 2017 and December 2021 were identified. Four trained investigators independently screened the extracted documents to include all eligible CPGs and evaluated whether the items in the RIGHT checklist were reported in each CPG. Subsequently, the reporting rate of each CPG and item, as well as the mean reporting rate of each domain in the RIGHT checklist was calculated.Results: A total of 23 CPGs related to BLCA were finally included, of which, 22 guidelines were written in English and 1 was published in Chinese. The mean reporting rate of the included CPGs was approximately 65%. The reporting rates of the items in each RIGHT domain were 77% for basic information domain, 75% for recommendations domain, 72% for evidence domain, 69% for background domain, 43% for funding and declaration and management of interest domain, 35% for review and quality assurance domain, and 41% for other information domain. The reporting rate was determined as the mean value in Office Excel 2019. Conclusions:The reporting quality of BLCA CPGs related to the domains of funding and declaration and management of interest domain, review and quality assurance domain, and other information domain is poor and warrants improvement in the future.

show abstract

“…In some recently published studies, some researchers have evaluated guidelines for other types of cancer through the RIGHT checklist. As research progresses and advances, the development of oncology guidelines will become more standardized (11)(12)(13)(14). To evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on HNC published between 2018 and 2021, we analyzed all items reported in guidelines by using the RIGHT checklist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Hou¹,

Guo²,

Zhou³

et al. 2022

Transl Cancer Res TCR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Head and neck cancer (HNC) comprises a heterogeneous group of cancers. In view of the distinct biological characteristics and treatment strategies, clinical physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) which could provide reliable recommendations on medical practices. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs in the field of HNC. Methods We developed rigorous search strategies before searching the domestic and international literature databases (n=568) including Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang as well as websites of guideline organizations (n=8) published between January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2021 for appropriate guidelines on HNC. We included all evidence-based guidelines about HNC in English or Chinese. We excluded translations, summaries and interpretations of guidelines, as well as older versions of guidelines if an updated edition was available. Data were extracted and the reporting quality was evaluated by two investigators independently guided by the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. Results A total of 21 guidelines complied with the inclusion criteria. Items show distinctions with reporting proportions among seven RIGHT domains. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 75.4% for basic information, 63.1% for background, 42.9% for evidence, 55.1% for recommendations, 42.9% for review and quality assurance, 26.2% for funding and declaration and management of interests, and 50.8% for other information. Discussion The average reporting quality of the recently published guidelines for HNC was moderate. Our research would help optimize the development processes of guidelines, resulting in high-quality guidelines for healthcare professionals.

show abstract

Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About