Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Abstract

Background: In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument. Methods:We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms.The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants.Results: A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported. Conclusions:Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

“…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 ).…”

Initial low-dose computed tomography screening results and summary of participant characteristics: based on the latest Chinese guideline

“…One previous study ( 29 ) focusing on the initial LDCT physical examination data of Shanghai residents suggested a size of 5 mm as the threshold for positive results to reduce the negative effects of screening with a 29.9% nodule detection rate. In our study, although the detection rate of nodules was higher than mentioned above (differences in machine equipment or parameter settings ( 41 , 42 ) might be important reasons), most nodules were Lung-RADS 2, which were relatively safe and did not require clinical treatment ( 15 ). Furthermore, individuals might react very differently to the screening results.…”

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection and systematic analysis of the level of evidence for recommendations

“…Among the items in the ‘evidence’ domain 10b, only two CPGs were ‘reported’ and ‘partially reported,’ respectively. However, outcome selection is very important in the formulation of the PICO (patient, intervention, control, and outcome) question because it affects the balance of benefits and harms on which the proposal is based, and readers need to know how and why certain outcomes are selected [ 63 , 64 ]. In total, there were 35 items in seven domains.…”