Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology.

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_C124C2EBA90D
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology.
Périodique
World journal of urology
Auteur(s)
van den Bergh RCN, Ost P., Surcel C., Valerio M., Fütterer J.J., Gandaglia G., Sooriakumaran P., Tilki D., Tsaur I., Ploussard G.
Collaborateur(s)
European Association of Urology Working Party on Prostate Cancer (EAU-YAUWP)
ISSN
1433-8726 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0724-4983
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
09/2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
36
Numéro
9
Pages
1489-1494
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
Guidelines and recommendations become increasingly important in clinical urologic practice. This study aims to inform clinicians using guidelines on how to evaluate the quality of the methodology and transparency of these documents.
The guidelines on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of the American Urology Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Society of Medical Oncology were reviewed using the AGREE-II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). We reported and compared the domain scores for the domains 1 scope and purpose, 2 stakeholder involvement, 3 rigor of development, 4 clarity of presentation, 5 applicability, and 6 editorial independence (100% indicates highest-best quality score).
The domains evaluated highest and with lowest variability were 'editorial independence' (92% {88-95%}) and 'clarity of presentation' (83% {72-90%}), while the domains with the lowest scores and most variability were 'stakeholder involvement' (56% {36-79%}) and 'applicability' (40% {30-63%}). Length and extent of detail of guidelines vary considerably, each with its own strengths and limitations and adapted to target users. Standard external review using AGREE criteria may be preferable. A formal search strategy was not performed. Findings may be outdated by guidelines' updates.
Clinicians using practice guidelines need to be aware of the different domains of methodology and transparency used to assess the quality of guidelines contents and recommendations. Urologists increasingly use guidelines for support in evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. It is very important to know how to assess these documents. This study applies standard criteria to compare the design and background of different available guidelines on prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal treatment.
Mots-clé
Academies and Institutes, Cross-Sectional Studies, Guideline Adherence/standards, Humans, Male, Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards, Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/therapy, Quality Control, Urology/standards, AGREE tool, Guidelines, Prostate cancer, Review
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
12/04/2018 16:50
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 15:35
Données d'usage