Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer. / Köhler, Hugo Fontan; Mehanna, Hisham; Shah, Jatin P; Sanabria, Alvaro; Fagan, Johannes; Kuriakose, Moni A; Rene Leemans, C; O'Sullivan, Brian; Krishnan, Suren; Kowalski, Luiz P.

In: European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 15.10.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Köhler, HF, Mehanna, H, Shah, JP, Sanabria, A, Fagan, J, Kuriakose, MA, Rene Leemans, C, O'Sullivan, B, Krishnan, S & Kowalski, LP 2020, 'Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer', European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8

APA

Köhler, H. F., Mehanna, H., Shah, J. P., Sanabria, A., Fagan, J., Kuriakose, M. A., Rene Leemans, C., O'Sullivan, B., Krishnan, S., & Kowalski, L. P. (2020). Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer. European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8

Vancouver

Author

Köhler, Hugo Fontan ; Mehanna, Hisham ; Shah, Jatin P ; Sanabria, Alvaro ; Fagan, Johannes ; Kuriakose, Moni A ; Rene Leemans, C ; O'Sullivan, Brian ; Krishnan, Suren ; Kowalski, Luiz P. / Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer. In: European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. 2020.

Bibtex

@article{b1f2e70c62034fc49ba48a10cc137783,
title = "Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer",
abstract = "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.",
author = "K{\"o}hler, {Hugo Fontan} and Hisham Mehanna and Shah, {Jatin P} and Alvaro Sanabria and Johannes Fagan and Kuriakose, {Moni A} and {Rene Leemans}, C and Brian O'Sullivan and Suren Krishnan and Kowalski, {Luiz P}",
year = "2020",
month = oct,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8",
language = "English",
journal = "European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology",
issn = "0937-4477",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

AU - Köhler, Hugo Fontan

AU - Mehanna, Hisham

AU - Shah, Jatin P

AU - Sanabria, Alvaro

AU - Fagan, Johannes

AU - Kuriakose, Moni A

AU - Rene Leemans, C

AU - O'Sullivan, Brian

AU - Krishnan, Suren

AU - Kowalski, Luiz P

PY - 2020/10/15

Y1 - 2020/10/15

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8

DO - 10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 33057952

JO - European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology

JF - European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology

SN - 0937-4477

ER -