Quality assessment of global lung cancer screening guidelines and consensus

Abstract

Objective: To understand the research progress and quality of lung cancer screening guidelines and consensus in China and abroad, and to provide reference for the formulation of high-quality lung cancer screening guidelines in China. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, VIP and Wanfang Data were searched, websites and important references were also searched by hand retrieval. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) were used to assess the quality of newly published or updated guidelines and consensus. Results: A total of 9 guidelines and consensus published between 2015 and 2020 were included in this study, with countries including the United States, China, Canada, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The field of scope and purpose and clarity of presentation scored relatively high but the rigor of development and applicability scored low. Five guidelines were judged to be A-level, all of which were published abroad, and the remaining four were B-level, including three guidelines and consensus issued by China and 1 guideline issued by South Africa. The report rate of RIGHT were higher in basic information and background, lower in review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests. There were 5 guidelines with a good level and 4 guidelines and consensus with a moderate level. The best overall quality guidelines were those published by the American College of Chest Physicians in 2018 and by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2016. Conclusions: The number of countries and institutions that issue lung cancer screening guidelines and consensus had been increasing gradually, but the quality in China remained low. It is necessary to develop high-quality lung cancer screening guidelines suitable for China's national conditions in combination with evidence-based methods to guide practice.