Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


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

External organisations

  • 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.


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