Abstract
Purpose
Guidelines and recommendations become increasingly important in clinical urologic practice. This study aims to inform clinicians using guidelines on how to evaluate the quality of the methodology and transparency of these documents.
Methods
The guidelines on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of the American Urology Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Society of Medical Oncology were reviewed using the AGREE-II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). We reported and compared the domain scores for the domains 1 scope and purpose, 2 stakeholder involvement, 3 rigor of development, 4 clarity of presentation, 5 applicability, and 6 editorial independence (100% indicates highest—best quality score).
Results
The domains evaluated highest and with lowest variability were ‘editorial independence’ (92% {88—95%}) and ‘clarity of presentation’ (83% {72–90%}), while the domains with the lowest scores and most variability were ‘stakeholder involvement’ (56% {36–79%}) and ‘applicability’ (40% {30–63%}). Length and extent of detail of guidelines vary considerably, each with its own strengths and limitations and adapted to target users. Standard external review using AGREE criteria may be preferable. A formal search strategy was not performed. Findings may be outdated by guidelines’ updates.
Conclusions
Clinicians using practice guidelines need to be aware of the different domains of methodology and transparency used to assess the quality of guidelines contents and recommendations.
Patient summary
Urologists increasingly use guidelines for support in evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. It is very important to know how to assess these documents. This study applies standard criteria to compare the design and background of different available guidelines on prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318(7182):527–530
Loeb S (2014) Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 114(3):323–325
Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355(9198):103–106
Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281(20):1900–1905
Burgers JS, Fervers B, Haugh M, Brouwers M, Browman G, Philip T, Cluzeau FA (2004) International assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in oncology using the appraisal of guidelines and research and evaluation instrument. J Clin Oncol 22(10):2000–2007
Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Hanna S, Makarski J (2010) On behalf of the AGREE next steps consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J 182:E839–E842
Cookson MS, Roth BJ, Dahm P et al (2013) Castration-resistant prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol 190(2):429–438
Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71(4):630–642
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) (2016) Prostate Cancer. Version 1.2017 — December 16, 2016. www.nccn.org
Clinical Guideline Full Guideline (2014) Prostate Cancer: diagnosis and treatment. www.nice.org.uk
Parker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A, Horwich A (2015) ESMO guidelines committee. cancer of the prostate: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Suppl 5):v69–v77
Morgia G, Russo GI, Tubaro A et al (2016) Patterns of prescription and adherence to European association of urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: an Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the choosing treatment for prostate cancer (CHOICE) study. BJU Int 117(6):867–873
Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC (2015) Guideline-discordant use of imaging during work-up of newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Oncol Pract 11(2):e239–e246
Messina C, Bignotti B, Tagliafico A et al (2017) A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative. Insights Imaging 8(5):491–497
Lei X, Liu F, Luo S et al (2017) Evaluation of guidelines regarding surgical treatment of breast cancer using the AGREE Instrument: a systematic review. BMJ Open 7(11):e014883
Sharma R, Alla K, Pfeffer D et al (2017) An appraisal of practice guidelines for smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 51(11):1106–1120
Gupta M, McGauley J, Farkas A et al (2015) Clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer: a critical appraisal. J Urol 193(4):1153–1158
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
None.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van den Bergh, R.C.N., Ost, P., Surcel, C. et al. Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology. World J Urol 36, 1489–1494 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2278-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2278-7