Indian Solutions for Indian Problems—Association of Breast Surgeons of India (ABSI) Practical Consensus Statement, Recommendations, and Guidelines for the Treatment of Breast Cancer in India

Somashekhar, S. P.; Agarwal, Gaurav; Deo, S. V. S.; Chintamani,; Ram, Priyanka; Sarkar, Diptendra Kumar; Parmar, Vani

doi:10.1007/s12262-017-1666-3

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of them, 168 publications were found duplicated and 7205 did not meet the selection criteria. A total of 59 documents (43 CPGs [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , [68] ] and 16 CSs 42–57 [ [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] ]) were identified for final evaluation ( Table 1 ). The flow diagram detailing the study selection process is provided in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2019 (62) SESPM (62) SESPM Spain 2019 Not published Not reported Not reported 38 Linee guida: Neoplasie della mammela (63) CIS Neoplasia mammella (63) CIS Italy 2019 Not published Not reported Not reported 39 La radioterapia nel carcinoma della mammella. Indicazioni e tecniche (64) CIS RT mammella (64) CIS Italy 2018 Not published Not reported Not reported 40 Recommandations du GEFPICS pour la prise en charge des pr el evements dans le cadre du traitement n eoadjuvant du cancer du sein (65) GEFPICS Cancer du sein (65) GEFPICS France 2019 Annals of Pathologie Not reported Not reported 41 Breast Cancer Clinical Guidelines (66) NCA BC (66) NCA UK 2019 Not published Review Not reported 42 The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for systemic treatment of breast cancer, 2018 edition (67) Japanese systemic BC (67) JBCS Japan 2020 Breast Cancer Systematic review Not reported 43 The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2018 edition: the tool for shared decision making between doctor and patient (68) Japanese SDM BC (68) JBCS Japan 2020 Breast Cancer Systematic review Not reported 44 Consenso Mexicano sobre diagn ostico y tratamiento del c ancer mamario (69) GPC M exico (69) (70) Indian ICMR CS (70) (76) ASBS ablation (76) ASBS USA 2018 Not published Review Not reported 52 Consensus Guideline on the Management of the Axilla in Patients With Invasive/In-Situ Breast Cancer (77) ASBS axilla (77) ASBS USA 2019 Not published Review Not reported 53 Consensus Guideline on Breast Cancer Lumpectomy Margins (78) ASBS margins (78) ASBS USA 2017 Not published Review Not reported 54 The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement on intraoperative radiation therapy (79) AB intraoperative RT (79)…”

Section: Not Reportedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Mignini²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

The Breast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment. Methods Following protocol registration (Prospero n o : CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identiﬁed, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively. Results There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9–74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5–84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001). Conclusion The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Not Reportedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Mignini²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

The Breast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 4116 potential citations identified, a total of 167 documents (139 CPGs 33‐171 and 28 CSs 172‐199 ) were identified for final evaluation (Figure 1). ICC for reviewer agreement was 0.97.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Muñoz‐Núñez²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). Objective To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment. Search strategy Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document. Data extraction and synthesis A 31‐item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate. Main results There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one‐fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations. Discussion and conclusions SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.

show abstract

“…The opinion poll was straight away projected on screen. This formed the basis of the "ABSI Consensus Guidelines", which were published in the Indian Journal of Surgery in 2017 [36].…”

Section: Absi Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ABSI – The Voice for Breast Surgery in India; Celebrating 10 positively eventful years! (2011 – 2021)

Pillarisetti

Somashekhar

2021

Indian J Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indian Solutions for Indian Problems—Association of Breast Surgeons of India (ABSI) Practical Consensus Statement, Recommendations, and Guidelines for the Treatment of Breast Cancer in India

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

ABSI – The Voice for Breast Surgery in India; Celebrating 10 positively eventful years! (2011 – 2021)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About