不同口腔癌指南的比较。
Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer.
机构信息
Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A C Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Professor Antônio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01509-010, Brazil.
The Institute of Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
出版信息
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Aug;278(8):2961-2973. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8. Epub 2020 Oct 15.
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.
背景
指南应为决策提供易于理解且可靠的信息。此外，它们还应能够翻译成多种语言，以便在不同的情况下使用。
方法
我们在 GOOGLE、PUBMED、SCIELO 和 SCOPUS 中搜索了有关口腔鳞状细胞癌的指南。我们使用 AGREE II 协议对其进行了评估。
结果
我们确定了 16 条符合纳入标准的指南。每个 AGREE II 领域的平均得分和范围如下：“范围和目的”为 74.1%（6-100.0%）；“利益相关者”为 78.6%（0-100.0%）；“制定的严谨性”为 71.4%（0-100.0%）；“表述的清晰性”为 71.4%（6-100.0%）；“适用性”为 50.0%（0-85.7%）；“编辑独立性”为 57.1%（14.3-85.7%）；“总体评估”为 57.1%（14.3-100.0%）。
结论
口腔癌指南的质量参差不齐。在现有的指南中，只有 4 个超过了 70%的 AGREE II 得分阈值。
Zotero 插件