Quality assessment of guidelines and consensus in lung cancer chemotherapy

Abstract

Objective: To understand the current status of clinical guidelines and consensus for lung cancer chemotherapy, evaluate and analyze the quality of lung cancer chemotherapy treatment guidelines, and provide references for the revision and improvement of lung cancer chemotherapy clinical decision-making and guidelines. Methods: Search Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Library), China Knowledge Network, Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database and other related databases and clinical practice guidelines related to lung cancer chemotherapy, and screen the literatures according to the established inclusion exclusion criteria. Use the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) and reporting items for practice guidelines in healthcare (RIGHT) tools to compare and evaluate the quality of the included guides and the level of reporting specifications. Results: A total of 14 guidelines were included. The assessment results of AGREE Ⅱ showed that the average score of scope and purpose was 94 points, the average score of stakeholder involvement was 60 points, the average score of rigour of development was 43 points, the average score of clarity of presentation was 88 points, the average score of applicability was 50 points, the average score of editorial independence was 61 points. Seven guidelines were evaluated as A level, 6 guidelines were evaluated as B level, 1 guideline was evaluated as C level. The assessment results of RIGHT showed that, in addition to the basic information, the included guidelines have many deficiencies in 6 areas including background, evidence, recommendation, review and quality assurance, funding, declaration and management of interests and other information, and the normative gap between domestic and foreign guides was large. Conclusions: The overall quality of clinical guidelines for lung cancer chemotherapy is high, but the standardization needs to be strengthened. There is a big gap between the quality and standardization of domestic and foreign guides. Further developments of high-quality clinical practice guidelines and guidelines consistent with our country's actual situation are needed.