Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements in Oncology – An Assessment of Their Methodological Quality

摘要: Background Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition purpose, these terms often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed methodological quality consensus published three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus between January 2005 September 2013 Current Oncology, European Journal Cancer Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was using Appraisal Guidelines Research Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour development editorial independence domains. For assessment transparency document development, 7 additional items taken from Institute Medicine’s standards authors guidance documents. Methods Medicine's documents. Findings Thirty-four 67 The score over journals 32% lower than that guidelines. 15% One journal scored consistently others both No adhered to all related development. journal’s endorsed a product made by sponsoring pharmaceutical company 64% cases. Conclusion Guidance documents an essential part oncology should be subjected rigorous validated process. had AGREE II. At minimum, ensure adhere criteria. Journals consider explicitly requiring declare sponsorship identify sponsor’s enhance transparency.