Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

Aim Evidence‐based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high‐quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CP...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Colorectal disease 2022-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1472-1490
Main Authors: Maes‐Carballo, Marta, García‐García, Manuel, Gómez‐Fandiño, Yolanda, De‐Dios‐de‐Santiago, Diego, Martínez‐Martínez, Carmen, Bueno‐Cavanillas, Aurora, Khan, Khalid Saeed
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
AGREE II
anal cancer treatment
Anus
Anus Neoplasms - therapy
Cancer
Cancer therapies
Clinical medicine
clinical practice guidelines
Colorectal cancer
colorectal cancer treatment
Consensus
consensus statements
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Prospective Studies
quality
Reviews
RIGHT
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim Evidence‐based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high‐quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively. Results The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0–62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0–67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (
ISSN:1462-8910
1463-1318
DOI:10.1111/codi.16270