Systematic appraisal of guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Liu, Xin-Jie; Yang, Ting; Shi, Xin; Xiao, Bing-He; An, Li-Ya; Zheng, Su-Yun; Qi, Yanfei; Sun, Dingyong

doi:10.21037/gs-20-676

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2016, a panel of expert pancreatologists found that, out of thirty-six clinical questions on pancreatic cancer management, only four had sufficient evidence in available guidelines for agreement [ 18 ]. Other works on pancreatic cancer international guidelines mainly focus on their methodological quality using The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool [ 19 , 20 ]. For both diagnosis and therapeutic guidelines, these works reported a suboptimal methodological quality across different guidelines with important variations in recommendations [ 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other works on pancreatic cancer international guidelines mainly focus on their methodological quality using The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool [ 19 , 20 ]. For both diagnosis and therapeutic guidelines, these works reported a suboptimal methodological quality across different guidelines with important variations in recommendations [ 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Levels of Evidence Supporting United States Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treatment

Pellat

Boutron

Ravaud

2022

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer guidelines are ideally based on high levels of evidence (LOE). We aim to evaluate the LOE supporting recommendations in United States (US) guidelines on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment and its evolution over time. We searched for current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and their prior publicly available versions on societies’ websites and/or MEDLINE. We recorded the LOE and class of recommendation (opinion of the writing panel) for each recommendation. We defined high LOE as: a “high” quality of evidence from the GRADE methodology (ASCO) and “Category 1” (NCCN). Our main outcome was the proportion of PDAC recommendations supported by high LOE. Proportions of high LOE recommendations were 5% (2/40) and 8% (12/153) in current ASCO and NCCN guidelines, respectively. Less than 10% of class I recommendations were based on high LOE. For NCCN guidelines, the proportion of high LOE recommendations did not improve over time and only three recommendations increased their LOE. We identified a small percentage of high LOE recommendations for PDAC treatment in US guidelines. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence. The current framework of evidence should be challenged with consideration of observational evidence.

show abstract