loading page

Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Recommendations for Esophageal Cancer
  • +2
  • Peizan Ni,
  • Ruiyun Zhang,
  • Xiaohui Wang,
  • Xuan Wu,
  • Hong Ge
Ruiyun Zhang
Author Profile
Xiaohui Wang
Author Profile
Hong Ge

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile

Abstract

Background: In the process of diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer, the clinical guidelines is of great significance for the medical behavior of clinicians and application of new research results. However, a non-standard formulation of the guidelines may mislead clinicians and bring unnecessary financial burden to patients. This study is to evaluate the quality of the guidelines. Methods: We identified the clinical practice guidelines or recommendations published in the English database since 2018 that guide for the diagnosis or treatment of esophageal cancer. Two reviewers used RIGHT checklist to evaluate the quality of eligible guidelines independently. Results: A total of 15 guidelines and recommendations meet the inclusion criteria. Six of them are from China, four from the United States, three from Japan, and the remaining two are from Canada and Germany. Among them, there are 4 in Chinese and 11 in English. The evaluation of these guidelines and recommendations showed that the reporting proportion of 4 articles was less than 50%. The average reporting proportion of 15 articles is 60.00%. Of the seven domains covered by RIGHT checklist, “basic information” has the highest reporting proportion (78.89%) and the lowest is “review and quality assurance” (13.33%). Of all sub-items, 3 are 100% reported, 13 (37.14%) sub-items are less than 50%. There is no difference between the Chinese guide and the English guide (P= 0.442). Conclusions: The reporting quality of the esophageal cancer guidelines published in the past three years is moderate, but there are some deficiencies in the domains of “review and quality assurance”, “funding and declaration and management of interests” and “other information”. Guideline developers should strictly follow the standard to improve the quality.