Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Hugo Fontan Köhler, Hisham Mehanna, Jatin P Shah, Alvaro Sanabria, Johannes Fagan, Moni A Kuriakose, C Rene Leemans, Brian O'Sullivan, Suren Krishnan, Luiz P Kowalski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


BACKGROUND: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations.

METHODS: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol.

RESULTS: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: "scope and purpose" 74.1% (6-100.0%); "stakeholder" 78.6% (0-100.0%); "rigor of development" 71.4% (0-100.0%); "clarity of presentation" 71.4% (6-100.0%); "applicability" 50.0% (0-85.7%); "editorial independence" 57.1% (14.3-85.7%) and "overall assessment" 57.1% (14.3-100.0%).

CONCLUSION: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 15 Oct 2020


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this