SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review using AGREE II and AGREE-REX.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This review utilizes the AGREE II instrument to evaluate the methodological rigor and the AGREE-REX instrument to evaluate the implementability of recommendations within clinical practice guidelines for fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer. This is the first study to comprehensively appraise related guidelines using both officially recognized instruments. The findings aim to inform clinical application by identifying high-quality and implementable guidelines. Methods: By June 2026, a systematic search was conducted across seven electronic databases, six guideline repositories, and relevant breast cancer society websites. Guidelines were screened according to predefined criteria, and independent quality assessments were performed using AGREE II and AGREE-REX. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Twelve guidelines were included. The AGREE II domain scores (mean standardized percentages) showed significant variations: Scope and Purpose (72.98%), Editorial Independence (71.81%), Clarity of Presentation (70.05%), Applicability (69.33%), Rigor of Development (55.30%), and Stakeholder Involvement (54.78%), highlighting critical gaps in patient participation and evidence updating mechanisms. Based on AGREE II and AGREE-REX evaluations, five guidelines were classified as Grade A (strongly recommended), four as Grade B, and three as Grade C. Conclusion: The five Grade A guidelines predominantly originated from Western countries. Prior to clinical implementation, they require cultural adaptation, language translation, and local validation to align with regional healthcare systems and patient values. Future guideline development should prioritize stakeholder integration, dynamic updating mechanisms, and resource allocation assessments to enhance clinical applicability. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO CRD42023464394.
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.