Mass colorectal cancer screening: Methodological quality of practice guidelines is not related to their content validity

被引:16
|
作者
Watine, Joseph C. [1 ]
Bunting, Peter S. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Hop Gen, Lab Biol Polyvalente, Ctr Gen Hosp, F-12027 Rodez 9, France
[2] Ottawa Hosp, Dept Pathol, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hosp, Lab Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
colorectal cancer; mass-screening; fecal occult blood test (FOBT); practice guideline; recommendation; methodology; quality; validity; outcome; survival; systematic review;
D O I
10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2007.12.020
中图分类号
R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Objectives: It is not clear if good methodological quality in developing practice guidelines (GLs) necessarily leads to valid recommendations that, when implemented, are more likely to improve the balance between benefits and harms/costs. We assessed whether or not there is a link between methodological quality and recommendation validity in GLs for the use of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as a screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the average-risk population. Methods: We systematically searched for such practice GLs published in English or in French within the last 7 years. Our inclusion criteria limited the initial 36 GLs to 12. Scores for methodological quality based on the AGREE criteria were attributed to each of these 12 GLs. Likewise, we searched for meta-analysis and other systematic reviews (SRs) addressing the issue, and we selected for inclusion 8 SRs that met basic quality criteria according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS). We used the results and conclusions of these 8 SRs to establish the validity of recommendations made in the 12 included GLs. Results: Regarding methodological quality, the GLs were labeled either "strongly recommend" (n=3), "recommend with provisos or alterations" (n=3), "would not recommend" (n=2), or "unsure" (n=4). The nine GLs recommending for, as well as the three GLs recommending against, mass-screening are equally valid, because the former base their recommendation on the fact that this can decrease CRC-mortality, whereas the latter base their recommendation on the facts that: (I) this procedure would be too expensive and/or not adapted to their local organization of care, and (2) to a lesser extent, the balance between benefits and harms is not crystal-clear from an individual patient perspective. Conclusion: The fact that the 12 GLs fell short of basic quality criteria confirms many previous observations in various areas of medicine. Because the 12 GLs were found to be equally valid regarding their FOBT-related recommendations, no relation could be found between their methodological quality and their content validity. (c) 2008 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:459 / 466
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition Management of lesions detected in colorectal cancer screening
    Steele, R. J. C.
    Pox, C.
    Kuipers, E. J.
    Minoli, G.
    Lambert, R.
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 44 : SE140 - SE150
  • [32] Screening for cancer: from guidelines to practice
    Sasco, AJ
    [J]. BULLETIN DU CANCER, 2001, 88 (07) : 643 - 644
  • [33] Clinical practice guidelines - Review of the recommendations for colorectal screening
    Anderson, J
    [J]. GERIATRICS, 2000, 55 (02) : 67 - 73
  • [34] Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for antenatal oral healthcare: An assessment of their methodological quality and content of recommendations
    Wilson, Annika
    Ha Hoang
    Bridgman, Heather
    Crocombe, Leonard
    Bettiol, Silvana
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (02):
  • [35] The quality of clinical practice guidelines for cancer-related depression and anxiety
    Bergeron, Catherine
    MacKay, Sarah
    Azzi, Michelle
    Korner, Annett
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 58 : 349 - 349
  • [36] Colorectal cancer screening: Clinical guidelines and rationale
    Ransohoff, DF
    Lang, CA
    Young, GP
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1997, 113 (04) : 1423 - 1424
  • [37] Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review
    Subramanian, S
    Klosterman, M
    Amonkar, MM
    Hunt, TL
    [J]. PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2004, 38 (05) : 536 - 550
  • [38] Methodological quality of clinical guidelines for universal newborn hearing screening
    Kamenov, Kaloyan
    Chadha, Shelly
    [J]. DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY, 2021, 63 (01): : 16 - 21
  • [39] Updated Canadian colorectal cancer screening guidelines
    Tanday, Sanjay
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (04): : E137 - E137
  • [40] Frequency of colorectal cancer and new screening guidelines
    Lieberman, D.
    [J]. STRATEGIES OF CANCER PREVENTION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 165A : 65 - 68