Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the use of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of thyroid nodules and cancer

Abstract

IntroductionRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) has gained significant recent global interest in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules and thyroid cancer. It is a relatively new, minimally invasive, thermal ablation technique that is an alternative to surgery. Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), consensus statements, and recommendations currently exist for the use of RFA in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules and thyroid cancers. These documents have considerable variability amongst them, and to date, their quality and methodologic rigor have not been appraised. ObjectiveTo identify and perform a quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for RFA in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules and thyroid cancer using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases from inception to November 1, 2021. Four reviewers independently evaluated each guideline using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain scores were generated and the threshold used for satisfactory quality was >60%. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to determine level of agreement between reviewers. ResultsSeven guidelines were selected for final evaluation based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two guidelines were classified “high” quality, one “average” quality, and the rest “low” quality. The “Clarity and Presentation” (65.68 ± 26.1) and “Editorial Independence” (61.32 ± 25.8) domains received the highest mean scores, while the “Applicability” (32.14 ± 22.8) and “Rigor of Development” (45.02 ± 29.8) domains received the lowest mean scores. ICC statistical analysis showed high magnitude of agreement between reviewers with a range of (0.722–0.944). ConclusionReflecting upon our quality appraisal, it is evident that the quality and methodologic rigor of RFA guidelines can be improved upon in the future. Our findings also elucidate the existing variability/discrepancies amongst guidelines in the indications and use of RFA.