ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
Screening and diagnosis of oral cancer: a critical quality appraisal of clinical guidelines.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Emergency and sequalae management of traumatic dental injuries: a systematic survey of clinical practice guidelines.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- What should nurses do on post-stroke depression? A global systematic assessment of clinical practice guidelines.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of head and neck cancer education at European dental schools.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2022Article
- Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on screening and diagnosis of oral cancer and to describe the characteristics of their recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CPG' websites, and dentistry and oncology scientific societies to identify CPGs that were related to screening and diagnosis of oral cancer. The quality of selected CPGs was independently assessed by four appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The inter-appraiser agreement was assessed. We performed a descriptive analysis of the recommendations included in the selected CPGs.
resultsEight CPGs were selected. The overall agreement among reviewers was considered very good (ICC: 0.823; 95% CI: 0.777-0.861). The median scores of the six AGREE II domains were as follows: "scope and purpose" 97.9% (IQR: 96.2-100.0%); "stakeholder involvement" 86.1% (IQR: 69.8-93.1%); "rigor of development" 75.3% (IQR: 64.2-94.3%); "clarity of presentation" 91.7% (IQR: 82.6-94.4%); "applicability" 53.1% (IQR: 19.3-74.2%); and "editorial independence" 83.3% (IQR: 67.2-93.8%). Four CPGs were assessed as "recommended", four "recommended with modifications", and none "not recommended". Twenty-three recommendations were provided, mostly with a low or very low level of evidence.
conclusionThe methodological quality of CPGs on screening and diagnosis of oral cancer is moderate. The "applicability" domain scored the lowest. Most recommendations were based on a low o very low level of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater efforts are needed to provide healthcare based on high-quality evidence-based CPGs in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30284100What 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.