Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33968700›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2021

Systematic appraisal of guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Xin-Jie Liu, Ting Yang, Xin Shi, Bing-He Xiao, Li-Ya An, Su-Yun Zheng, Yu-Xing Qi, Da-Li Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Xin-Jie LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Ting YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Xin ShiDepartment of Digestive Endoscopy Center, Qujing First Hospital/Qujing Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Qujing, China.
Bing-He XiaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Li-Ya AnDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Su-Yun ZhengDepartment of Digestive Endoscopy Center, Qujing First Hospital/Qujing Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Qujing, China.
Yu-Xing QiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Da-Li SunDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/The Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review aimed at assessing current guidelines' methodological quality systematically for pancreatic cancer's diagnosis and to reveal the heterogeneity of the recommendations among the evaluated guidelines. A systematic search was conducted to find the latest guidelines for pancreatic cancer's diagnosis. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the qualified guidelines' feature. We extracted the main recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from the guidelines and performed a heterogeneity evaluation. The highest-level evidence that supported these recommendations was further extracted and analysed. Nine guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were included in this study. Four of the guidelines had an overall score of more than 60% and thus are recommended for clinical use. Further analysis of the heterogeneity of the main recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in the guidelines revealed that the recommendations vary greatly among the different guidelines. The main reasons for the great differences include the neglect of symptoms and signs, great differences in the items involved in recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, inconsistent recommendations for some indicators (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and ERCP), the unreasonable citation of evidence, and the failure of some recommendations to provide evidence supporting the recommendations. For most recommendations, there was a low level of evidence and a dearth of high-quality study evidence. Recommendations for pancreatic cancer diagnosis have been significantly inconsistent over the past five years. The quality of the guidelines for diagnosing pancreatic cancer also varies. The improvement by the guideline creators of the factors that contribute to the differences mentioned above will be a shortcut to update the guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

AGREE IIdiagnosisguidelinesPancreatic cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33968700
PMCPMC8102215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.