ArticleBMC cancer2025
Assessing the quality and integrating the evidence and strength of recommendations in the guidelines for gastric precancerous lesions.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to offer appropriate recommendations for clinical practice based on the available evidence while acknowledging existing gaps and uncertainties. The quality of CPGs for gastric precancerous lesions (GPL), distribution of evidence quality, and strength of recommendations are unknown.
objectiveSystematically evaluate the quality of CPGs for GPL and identify areas for improvement in the development process.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and six online CPG repositories were systematically searched for CPGs related to GPL. Three researchers independently assessed the methodological quality of the included CPGs by using the AGREE II tool. The reporting and recommendation quality of the CPGs were evaluated using the RIGHT and AGREE-REX tools through consensus. Evidence-based CPGs were analyzed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to determine the distribution of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
resultsA total of 4046 records were identified; nine CPGs met the eligibility criteria for this study. The mean overall score for the methodological quality of the CPGs was 46.22%. Among the six domains, the mean score for clarity of presentation was the highest (71.67%), while the mean score for applicability was the lowest (24.56%). Among the nine CPGs, only one was considered high quality. Regarding reporting quality, domains 1, 3, and 4 had mean reporting rates equal to or higher than 60%. The mean overall score for the recommendation quality was 19.11%. In total, 235 recommendations were identified through the screening process, of which 64.4% were classified as strong. However, only 17.5% of the strong recommendations were supported by high-quality evidence.
conclusionThe overall quality of CPGs for GPL was poor, with uneven quality across domains. In addition, the consistency between the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence was poor.
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.