ArticleMedicine2015
Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pancreatic cancer: a PRISMA-compliant article.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in pancreatic cancer clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review and quality assessment.Integrative medicine research · 2023Review
- Appraising the Evidence Supporting Choosing Wisely® Recommendations.Journal of hospital medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play an important role in health care. The guideline development process should be precise and rigorous to ensure that the results are reproducible and not vague. To determine the quality of guidelines, the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was developed and introduced. The objective of this study is to assess the methodological quality of CPGs on pancreatic cancer. Five databases (included MEDLINE and EMBASE) and guideline websites were searched till April, 2014. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by 4 authors independently using the AGREE II instrument. From 2526 citations, 21 relevant guidelines were included. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.96). The mean scores were moderate for the domains "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation"; however, they were low for the domains "stakeholder involvement" (31.22), "rigor of development", "applicability", and "editorial independence". These domain scores were lower when compared with international levels. There are 5 (23.81%) guidelines that described the systematic methods for searching. Moreover, only 5 (23.81%) guidelines reported that methodological expertise were included in the guideline developing teams. The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of pancreatic cancer guidelines need to be improved. Many other methodological disadvantages were identified. In the future, pancreatic cancer CPGs should base on the best available evidence rigorously developed and reported. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that serve as a useful and reliable tool for clinical decision making in this field.
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.