Systematic review of guidelines for management of intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument

Holvoet, Tom; Raevens, Sarah; Vandewynckel, Yves-Paul; Biesen, Wim Van; Geboes, Karen; Vlierberghe, Hans Van

doi:10.1016/j.dld.2015.07.005

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Domain 1 (scope and purpose) and domain 4 (clarity of presentation) have obtained the highest scores, both of which with a score above 90%. This finding was consistent with the results of the previous studies on the appraisal of clinical guidelines using AGREE II tool, which covered various clinical topics (19,21,22,(30)(31)(32)(33). Such high scores are a result of full explanations of these domains presented by clinical guidelines developers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Critical Assessment of the Quality of Common Clinical Guidelines for Administering Chemotherapy Drugs by Using AGREE II Tool

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Administering chemotherapy drugs in patients with cancer is a complicated and risky process that may have the potential to harm patients and the healthcare team if not done safely. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of current clinical guidelines for the administration of chemotherapy drugs by using the appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Evidence Acquisition: After searching through authoritative databases and publishing clinical guidelines by institutions, the articles which were published between 2007 to August 2018 with selected keywords were reviewed and the clinical guidelines were evaluated independently by 5 experts using AGREE II tool based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The consensus between appraisers was examined using the ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient). Results: Among 51 clinical guidelines, 4 of them were matched with the inclusion criteria. All 4 clinical guidelines had a high level of quality, with a minimum score above 60% in their 5 domains. Domain 1(scope and purpose) obtained the highest score (95.27 %) and domain 3 (rigor of development) obtained the lowest score (84.89%). The degree of agreement between evaluators was very good (0.84-0.95). Conclusions: The overall quality of current clinical guidelines for administering chemotherapy drugs which were evaluated by AGREE II tool, is satisfactory. Therefore, their clinical implementation is recommended to the entire health care team and nurses working in oncology departments, in order to improve the safety of patients and the health care team, and also to prevent the complications of chemotherapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Critical Assessment of the Quality of Common Clinical Guidelines for Administering Chemotherapy Drugs by Using AGREE II Tool

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 55 Differences involve not only the predisposing factors for HCC 56 but also the genomic profile of the tumors, 57 , 58 the clinical characteristics of the patients, 59 , 60 and how they are managed by their healthcare providers. 61 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Molinari

Kaltenmeier

Samra

et al. 2021

Annals of Surgery Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured summary2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. INTRODUCTIONRationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). METHODS Protocol and registration5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). Data collection process10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Data items11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.9 Risk of bias in individual studies12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. 9-10Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). 11Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis. 11Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page # Risk of bias across studiesSpecify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). 9-10Additional analyses Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. 11 RESULTS Study selectionGive numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

show abstract

“…The quest for optimal and reliable guidelines based on robust evidence for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and without appeal: "Overall, the methodological quality of guidelines on the surgical management of cholangiocarcinoma is poor." This type of conclusion of guidelines appraisal is common: the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades in general (6) and specifically in the field of liver tumors (7)(8)(9). In brief, most often, "guidelines do not fulfill the guidelines to build them".…”

Section: Viewpointmentioning

confidence: 99%

The quest for optimal and reliable guidelines based on robust evidence for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma

Azoulay¹,

Bomze²,

Meirson³

2021

Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic review of guidelines for management of intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

The Critical Assessment of the Quality of Common Clinical Guidelines for Administering Chemotherapy Drugs by Using AGREE II Tool

The Critical Assessment of the Quality of Common Clinical Guidelines for Administering Chemotherapy Drugs by Using AGREE II Tool

Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

The quest for optimal and reliable guidelines based on robust evidence for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About