The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES

To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.

METHODS

The latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures.

RESULTS

Forty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median.

CONCLUSION

The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture.

KEY POINTS

• The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.