Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements in oncology--an assessment of their methodological quality

• Published in: PloS one 2014-10, Vol.9 (10), p.e110469-e110469
• Main Authors: Jacobs, Carmel, Graham, Ian D, Makarski, Julie, Chassé, Michaël, Fergusson, Dean, Hutton, Brian, Clemons, Mark
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Archives & records; Arthritis; Breast cancer; Cancer; Clinical medicine; Clinical practice guidelines; Colorectal cancer; Conflicts of interest; Editorials; Endorsements; Epidemiology; Evaluation; Guidelines; Humans; Medical care quality; Medical Oncology - standards; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Oncology; Patient Care - standards; Pharmaceutical industry; Pharmaceuticals; Physicians; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards; Quality; Quality assessment; Quality Control; Research and Analysis Methods; Systematic review; Transparency
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110469

Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Thirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal's consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases. Guidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals shoul