Köhler HF, Mehanna H, Shah JP, Sanabria A, Fagan J, Kuriakose MA, Rene Leemans C, O'Sullivan B, Krishnan S, Kowalski LP. Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;
278:2961-2973. [PMID:
33057952 DOI:
10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
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.
Collapse