ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2016
Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Factors Associated with the Quality and Transparency of National Guidelines: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Guidelines in Gastroenterology: Careful Interpretation Is Essential.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Recommendation Reversals in Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Is there a standardized practice for the development of international ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease treatment guidelines?Gastroenterology report · 2021Article
- Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021Review
- Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings.PloS one · 2021Article
- Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Balancing Clinical Value and Cost-effectiveness.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019Article
- Critical appraisal of guidelines for screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Response to Feuerstein J et al. "Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus". doi:10.1007/s10620-016-4222-2.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarrett's esophagus (BE) is a condition that has a small but important risk of progressing to esophageal cancer. To date, no study has assessed the strength of evidence supporting the recommendations for BE. We sought to assess the overall quality of the recommendations and strength of the BE using the AGREE II instrument.
methodsA PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines published pertaining to BE. Every guideline was reviewed using the AGREE II format to assess the methodological rigor and validity of the guideline. Additionally, guidelines were reviewed for the level of evidence used to support recommendations, conflicts of interest (COI), and differences in recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata (version 12).
resultsIn total, 234 manuscripts were identified of which 8 guidelines published between 2005 and 2013 pertained to BE. Seventy-five percentage (6/8) graded the evidence used to formulate recommendations. Of the 126 recommendations with supporting evidence, 6 % were supported by level A evidence, 49 % level B evidence, and 45 % level C evidence. Using the AGREE II format, the highest overall assessment grade was the BSG BE guideline (6.5 ± 0.6) followed by the AGA (5.5 ± 0.6). The highest rated domains were scope and purpose (mean 77 range 24-96) and clarity of presentation (mean 75), while the lowest rated domains were editorial independence (mean 32 range 0-92) and applicability of the guideline (mean 35 range 7-90). There was significant variability in recommendations regarding who to screen for BE and surveillance intervals. Finally, only 50 % of the guidelines disclosed if COI were present and 75 % (3/4) reported potentially relevant COI.
conclusionsMajority of the BE guideline fail to meet the AGREE II domains, and most of the recommendations are level B or C quality evidence. Further interventions are necessary to improve the overall quality of the guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27307064What 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.