• 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
  • 2. Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
  • 3. Lanzhou Heavy Ion Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
  • 4. Basic Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
  • 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Gansu Provincial Cancer Hospital, Lanzhou 730050, P.R.China;
WANG Xiaohu, Email: xhwanggansu@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objectives To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer.Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were electronically searched and major guideline websites such as GIN, NICE, NGC and Yimaitong were also searched to collect guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II and RIGHT instruments.Results A total of 26 esophageal cancer guidelines and consensus were included. The mean scores for each domain of AGREE II was 49.63% for scope and purpose, 25.16% for stakeholder involvement, 23.42% for rigor of development, 49.25% for clarity of presentation, 16.91% for applicability, and 21.07% for editorial independence. The item with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items was 5 (84.62%), followed by 1a (80.77%), 1c (65.38%), 13a (65.38%), and 4 (61.54%), and the remaining items were all reported below 50%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the guidelines and consensus developed based on the evidence-based medicine method had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE II and the RIGHT score than the guidelines and consensus developed based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the three domains of AGREE II (formulation rigor, clarity, editorial independence) and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines.Conclusions The methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on esophageal cancer is low, with the guidelines and consensus in China even lower, requiring further improvement. It is suggested that the guideline developers should refer to the standards such as AGREE II and RIGHT to develop high-quality guidelines and promote their application, so as to better guide the standardized diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer.

Citation: SHAO Lihua, ZHANG Qiuning, TIAN Jinhui, YANG Zhen, LUO Hongtao, LIU Ruifeng, LIAO Yiran, GENG Yichao, WANG Xiaohu, YANG Kehu. Quality evaluation of esophageal cancer clinical guidelines and consensus. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(5): 593-603. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201909072 Copy

  • Previous Article

    The theoretical and practical research and effect evaluation at home and abroad: a review of integrated care
  • Next Article

    Application of adaptive randomization in clinical trials