Kuriakose Jonathan P, Khan Najm, Suresh Neeraj V, De Ravin Emma, Moreira Alvaro, Rajasekaran Karthik
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104 USA.
J Laryngol Otol. 2025 Jan;139(1):60-67. doi: 10.1017/S0022215124001087. Epub 2024 Oct 21.
To appraise clinical practice guidelines for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma treatment and management using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.
A literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Four reviewers evaluated clinical practice guidelines utilising Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, with domain scores requiring a threshold of greater than 60 per cent. Inter-reviewer agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients.
Twelve clinical practice guidelines were evaluated after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were two "high-", four "average-", and six "low-" quality clinical practice guidelines. The domains with the highest scores were "clarity of presentation" (69.44 ± 16.75) and "scope and purpose" (68.87 ± 20.88), while "applicability" (7.12 ± 6.17) and "rigor of development" (50.26 ± 20.77) had the lowest scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed a high level of inter-reviewer agreement (0.689-0.924; good-excellent).
These results showcased wide variability in quality amongst guidelines for the treatment and management of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. These findings necessitate greater standardisation among clinical practice guidelines and greater focus on the applicability of recommended practices.
使用《研究与评价指南II》工具评估间变性甲状腺癌治疗与管理的临床实践指南。
通过MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane和谷歌学术进行文献检索。四位评审员使用《研究与评价指南II》评估临床实践指南，各领域得分需超过60%的阈值。使用组内相关系数评估评审员间的一致性。
应用纳入和排除标准后，评估了12项临床实践指南。有两项“高质量”、四项“中等质量”和六项“低质量”临床实践指南。得分最高的领域是“表述清晰度”（69.44±16.75）和“范围与目的”（68.87±20.88），而“适用性”（7.12±6.17）和“制定的严谨性”（50.26±20.77）得分最低。组内相关系数显示评审员间具有高度一致性（0.689 - 0.924；良好 - 优秀）。
这些结果表明间变性甲状腺癌治疗与管理指南的质量存在很大差异。这些发现需要临床实践指南之间有更大程度的标准化，并更加关注推荐实践的适用性。
