An evaluation of the methodological quality of published guidelines for the surgical treatment of pleural mesothelioma.

Abstract

To benchmark their quality, a project was designed to analyze the methodology of previous guidelines and recommendations for malignant pleural mesothelioma projects. A narrative literature search was conducted, and each guideline was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and rated on a seven-point scale for its many items and domains. Six guidelines that met the inclusion requirements were evaluated. Due to greater development rigor and editorial independence, the engagement of scientific societies was associated with an improvement in methodological quality. According to the standards of AGREE II, the methodological quality of earlier guidelines was relatively low. Nonetheless, two previously published guidelines could serve as a template for the establishment of the most effective methodological quality guidelines.