ReviewAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2018
Appraising of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Quality in the Non-Pharmacological Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; A Review
Review in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Febrile neutropenia is a common and serious chemotherapy side effect, is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and treatment expenditures. Several CPGs (Clinical practice guidelines) have been released for managing chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. The aim of this study is Appraisal of the clinical practice Guidelines quality in the management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Methods: A review study with a systematic search of the present CPGs for the management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. After screening the CPGs based on eligibility criteria, three CPGs were selected and 5 independent reviewers appraised them for methodological quality by using the AGREE II Instrument. Results: Three CPGs were included; all of them were evidence-based guidelines. The clarity of presentation domain scored the highest and the applicability domain has the lowest score among all domains of AGREE instrument and the rest of domains scored as descending respectively; Scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, editorial independence, rigor of development. In general, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) scores of all domains were very good according to the Landis and Koch’s scale, except the Applicability domain scored as substantial. Conclusions: This study showed the quality of appraised CPGs. Three domains of these CPGs based on the AGREE instrument scored less than other domains and were in relatively unfavorable status: applicability, rigor of development, editorial independence. Given the importance of these domains in guideline implementation, it is necessary to take actions for reducing these defects.
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.