SynthesisZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2016
[Systematic Review of the Methodology Quality in Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines].
Synthesis in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening uptake: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales.BMC public health · 2022Article
- [Quality assessment of global guidelines on colorectal cancer screening].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the most common malignancy and screening can decrease the mortality. High quality screening guideline is necessary and important for effective work. Our study is to review and evaluate the basic characteristics and methodology quality of the current global lung cancer screening guidelines so as to provide useful information for domestic study in the future.
methodsElectronic searches were done in English and Chinese databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and some cancer official websites. Articles were screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two researchers. The quality of guidelines was assessed by AGREE II.
resultsAt last, a total of 11 guidelines with methodology were included. The guidelines were issued mainly by USA (81%). Canada and China developed one, respectively. As for quality, the average score in the "Scale and objective" of all guidelines was 80, the average score in the "Participants" was 52, the average score in the "rigorism" was 50, the average score in the "clarity" was 76, the average score in the "application" was 43 and the average score in the "independence" was 59. The highest average score was found in 2013 and 2015. Canada guideline had higher quality in six domains. 7 guidelines were evaluated as A level.
conclusionsThe number of clinical guidelines showed an increasing trend. Most guidelines were issued by developed countries with heavy burden. Multi-country contribution to one guideline was another trend. Evidence-based methodology was accepted globally in the guideline development.
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.