An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines

Mitchell Love; Jordan Staggs; Corbin Walters; Cole Wayant; Trevor Torgerson; Micah Hartwell; J Michael Anderson; Anna Lillie; Kate Myers; Travis Brachtenbach; Micah Derby; Matt Vassar

doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Objective: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

Methods: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).

Results: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1–1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05−0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a “critically low” rating, 11 (15.7 %) received “low” ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received “moderate”. None of the SRs received a “high” rating.

Conclusion: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.

Original language	English
Article number	103549
Journal	Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Volume	169
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549
State	Published - Jan 2022

Keywords

AMSTAR-2
Cancer screening
Clinical practice guidelines
PRISMA
Systematic reviews

Access to Document

10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549

Cite this

Love, M., Staggs, J., Walters, C., Wayant, C., Torgerson, T., Hartwell, M., Anderson, J. M., Lillie, A., Myers, K., Brachtenbach, T., Derby, M., & Vassar, M. (2022). An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 169, Article 103549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549

@article{80e11b5bbd9743428bb27cb08b796b59,

title = "An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines",

abstract = "Objective: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Results: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 \% (range 0.1–1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 \% (range 0.05−0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 \%) received a “critically low” rating, 11 (15.7 \%) received “low” ratings, and 17 (24.3 \%) received “moderate”. None of the SRs received a “high” rating. Conclusion: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.",

keywords = "AMSTAR-2, Cancer screening, Clinical practice guidelines, PRISMA, Systematic reviews",

author = "Mitchell Love and Jordan Staggs and Corbin Walters and Cole Wayant and Trevor Torgerson and Micah Hartwell and Anderson, \{J Michael\} and Anna Lillie and Kate Myers and Travis Brachtenbach and Micah Derby and Matt Vassar",

note = "Funding Information: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences ? all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Funding Information: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse , the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , the US Office of Research Integrity , Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology , and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences — all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Elsevier B.V.",

year = "2022",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549",

language = "English",

volume = "169",

journal = "Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology",

issn = "1040-8428",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines

AU - Love, Mitchell

AU - Staggs, Jordan

AU - Walters, Corbin

AU - Wayant, Cole

AU - Torgerson, Trevor

AU - Hartwell, Micah

AU - Anderson, J Michael

AU - Lillie, Anna

AU - Myers, Kate

AU - Brachtenbach, Travis

AU - Derby, Micah

AU - Vassar, Matt

N1 - Funding Information: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences ? all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Funding Information: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse , the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , the US Office of Research Integrity , Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology , and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences — all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier B.V.

PY - 2022/1

Y1 - 2022/1

N2 - Objective: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Results: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1–1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05−0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a “critically low” rating, 11 (15.7 %) received “low” ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received “moderate”. None of the SRs received a “high” rating. Conclusion: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.

AB - Objective: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Results: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1–1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05−0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a “critically low” rating, 11 (15.7 %) received “low” ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received “moderate”. None of the SRs received a “high” rating. Conclusion: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.

KW - AMSTAR-2

KW - Cancer screening

KW - Clinical practice guidelines

KW - PRISMA

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85120944129

U2 - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549

DO - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103549

M3 - Review article

C2 - 34838981

AN - SCOPUS:85120944129

SN - 1040-8428

VL - 169

JO - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

JF - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

M1 - 103549

ER -

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this