ArticleBritish journal of cancer2011
The quality of web-based oncology guidelines and protocols: how do international sites stack up?
Article in British journal of cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international study of the quality of national-level guidelines on driving with medical illness.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 2015Review
- Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements in oncology--an assessment of their methodological quality.PloS one · 2014Article
- How do medical doctors use a web-based oncology protocol system? A comparison of Australian doctors at different levels of medical training using logfile analysis and an online survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Article
- Uptake of a web-based oncology protocol system: how do cancer clinicians use eviQ cancer treatments online?BMC cancer · 2013Article
- Impact of educational interventions on utilization patterns of anticancer agents in patients with breast cancer at the specialty oncology care setting in South India.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Internet is a popular medium for disseminating information relevant to oncology practitioners. Despite the widespread use of web-based guidelines and protocols, the quality of these resources has not been evaluated. This study addresses this gap.
methodsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the quality of breast and sarcoma guidelines and protocols according to six independent domains. The oncology resources were selected from eight websites developed for healthcare settings in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia.
resultsMean quality scores across domains were highly variable for both guidelines (29-73%) and protocols (31-71%). Guidelines scored highly in terms of articulating their Scope and Purpose (72.6 ± 11.2%) but poorly with respect to Applicability in clinical practice (29.0 ± 17.3%). Protocols scored highly on Clarity of Presentation (70.6 ± 17.6%) but poorly in terms of the processes used to synthesise underlying evidence, develop, and update recommendations (30.8 ± 20.0%).
conclusionOur evaluation provides a quick reference tool for clinicians about the strengths and limitations of oncology resources across several major websites. Further, it supports resource developers in terms of where to direct efforts to enhance guideline and protocol development processes or the communication of these processes to end-users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.