ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2019
[Quality assessment of global guidelines on colorectal cancer screening].
Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2019. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review and assess the quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer screening worldwide to provide guidance for the development of high-quality colorectal cancer screening guidelines in mainland China.
methodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify guidelines on colorectal cancer screening from inception to Jun. 20th, 2018, and so were some websites and major search engines about the development of the guidelines from the existing literature (search date: Aug. 3rd, 2018). Two experienced reviewers independently examined these abstracts and then extracted information, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) were used to evaluate the methodological quality of these guidelines by four well trained reviewers.
resultsIn this study, 46 guidelines published from 1994 to 2018 were finally included in our analysis from 10 countries and 5 regions, among which 5 were from mainland China. The quality of these guidelines was relatively high in domain 1 (scope and purpose) and domain 4 (clarity of presentation), and medium in domain 2 (stakeholder involvement). While in the other three domains (domain 3: rigour of development; domain 5: applicability; domain 6: editorial independence), the results were quite different among these guidelines. The quality of evidence-based guidelines (defined by the criteria based on World Health Organization guideline development handbook) was generally higher than that of the common guidelines. Existing guidelines from mainland China were not evidence-based guidelines, which were of low quality.
conclusionThe colorectal cancer screening guidelines all over the world are generally large in number, low in quality, different in statements, and so are the guidelines in China. There are no evidence-based guidelines in mainland China, which cannot provide effective guidance for colorectal cancer screening, so we need to pay more attention to the establishment of guidelines with high quality and high credibility for colorectal cancer screening as well as for cancer screening based on the national condition, in order to provide reasonable guidance for practice in public health and improve the health conditions in our society.
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.