Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Colleges, School and Institutes
- A C Camargo Cancer Center
- The Institute of Global Innovation
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
- Oxford Colorectal Surgery Department, Nuffield Department of Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.
- Cochin Cancer Research Center
- Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre
- University of Toronto
- Royal Adelaide Hospital
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.
|Journal||European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology|
|Publication status||E-pub ahead of print - 15 Oct 2020|