SynthesisBMJ open2017
Evaluation of guidelines regarding surgical treatment of breast cancer using the AGREE Instrument: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II).International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Providing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations.Current oncology reports · 2021Pooled it
- International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Guidelines informing counseling on female age-related fertility decline: a systematic review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Self-Managed Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Breast Cancer Survivors: Systematic Quality Appraisal and Content Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- A review of studies on omitting surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2022Review
- A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Importance and Presence of High-Quality Evidence for Clinical Decisions in Neurosurgery: International Survey of Neurosurgeons.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
- Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology.World journal of urology · 2018Article
- Clinical practice guidelines in breast cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
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
objectivesMany clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements (CPGs/consensus statements) have been developed for the surgical treatments for breast cancer. This study aims to evaluate the quality of these CPGs/consensus statements.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases, as well as four guideline repositories, to identify CPGs and consensus statements regarding surgical treatments for breast cancer between January 2009 and December 2016. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument to assess the quality of the CPGs and consensus statements included. The overall assessment scores from the AGREE instrument and radar maps were used to evaluate the overall quality. We also evaluated some factors that may affect the quality of CPGs and consensus statements using the Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test. All analyses were performed using SPSS V.19.0. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
resultsA total of 19 CPGs and four consensus statements were included. In general, the included CPGs/consensus statements (n=23) performed well in the 'Scope and Purpose' and 'Clarity and Presentation' domains, but performed poorly in the 'Applicability' domain. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG) and Belgium Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) guidelines had the highest overall quality, whereas the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) guidelines and the D.A.C.H and European School of Oncology (ESO) consensus statements had the lowest overall quality. The updating frequency of CPGs/consensus statements varied, with the quality of consensus statements generally lower than that of CPGs. A total of six, eight and five CPGs were developed in the North American, European and Asian/Pacific regions, respectively. However, geographic region was not associated with overall quality.
conclusionsThe ASCO, NICE, SIGN, NZGG and KCE guidelines had the best overall quality, and the quality of consensus statements was generally lower than that of CPGs. More efforts are needed to identify barriers and facilitators for CPGs/consensus statement implementation and to improve their applicability.
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.