An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist

Preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) + liver resection versus upfront liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma (≥5 cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for majority of primary liver cancer. Use of preoperative neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (PN-TACE) may result in tumor shrinkage and improve resectability. This study aims to summarize the outcomes of PN-TACE versus upfront liver resection (Up-LR) in large HCC (≥5 cm).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched till September 2022 for studies comparing PN-TACE versus Up-LR. The primary study outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 12 studies with 15 data sets including 3960 patients (PN-TACE n = 2447, Up-LR n = 1513). Majority (89.5%, n = 1250/1397) of patients had Child's A liver cirrhosis. Incidence of Child's B cirrhosis was higher in PN-TACE compared to Up-LR (Odds ratio (OR) 1.69, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.41, p = 0.004). Pooled hazard ratio (HR) for OS showed no significant difference between PN-TACE and Up-LR (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.18, p = 0.37), but DFS was superior in PN-TACE (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.99, p = 0.04). Subgroup analysis based on study design failed to show any significant effect in randomized controlled trials (n = 2/15 data sets). However, operating time (mean difference (MD) 31.94 min, 95% CI: 2.42, 61.45, p = 0.03) and blood loss (MD 190.93 ml, 95% CI: 10.22, 317.65, p = 0.04) were higher in PN-TACE. Intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrence, post-operative morbidity and in-hospital mortality were comparable between PN-TACE and Up-LR.

CONCLUSION

In retrospective studies, PN-TACE resulted in superior DFS compared to Up-LR. However, this may be confounded by selection bias.

A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

Background

The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was developed to improve the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). CPGs could provide the recommendations for key clinical issues with alternative care options and adherence to them could improve the outcomes. And, high reporting quality CPGs can assist health workers to incorporate the best evidence into the individual practice. There is no evaluation study on the reporting quality of CPGs in bladder cancer (BLCA). This study assessed the reporting quality of CPGs on BLCA and provided new insights for the development of CPGs in this disease.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in multiple literature databases, including PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) as well as the medical associations and websites of guideline development organizations. Relevant CPGs published between January 2017 and December 2021 were identified. Four trained investigators independently screened the extracted documents to include all eligible CPGs and evaluated whether the items in the RIGHT checklist were reported in each CPG. Subsequently, the reporting rate of each CPG and item, as well as the mean reporting rate of each domain in the RIGHT checklist was calculated.

Results

A total of 23 CPGs related to BLCA were finally included, of which, 22 guidelines were written in English and 1 was published in Chinese. The mean reporting rate of the included CPGs was approximately 65%. The reporting rates of the items in each RIGHT domain were 77% for basic information domain, 75% for recommendations domain, 72% for evidence domain, 69% for background domain, 43% for funding and declaration and management of interest domain, 35% for review and quality assurance domain, and 41% for other information domain. The reporting rate was determined as the mean value in Office Excel 2019.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of BLCA CPGs related to the domains of funding and declaration and management of interest domain, review and quality assurance domain, and other information domain is poor and warrants improvement in the future.