SynthesisBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines on Normal Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening.European journal of cancer care · 2022Pooled it
- Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress of cancer patients using the AGREE II instrument.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Quality in aesthetic medicine and surgery: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Pooled it
- Methodological and reporting quality of Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand clinical guidance documentsInternal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Self-Managed Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Breast Cancer Survivors: Systematic Quality Appraisal and Content Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Centralised Full Access to Clinical Study Data Can Support Unbiased Guideline Development, Continuing Medical Education, and Patient Information.Journal of European CME · 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
backgroundHigh-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.
methodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero n
resultsThere were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9-74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5-84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001).
conclusionThe quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.
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.