ReviewTranslational cancer research2022
Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on head and neck cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic management of sinonasal tumours in the Nordic university hospitals: a survey.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) comprises a heterogeneous group of cancers. In view of the distinct biological characteristics and treatment strategies, clinical physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) which could provide reliable recommendations on medical practices. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs in the field of HNC. Methods: We developed rigorous search strategies before searching the domestic and international literature databases (n=568) including Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang as well as websites of guideline organizations (n=8) published between January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2021 for appropriate guidelines on HNC. We included all evidence-based guidelines about HNC in English or Chinese. We excluded translations, summaries and interpretations of guidelines, as well as older versions of guidelines if an updated edition was available. Data were extracted and the reporting quality was evaluated by two investigators independently guided by the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. Results: A total of 21 guidelines complied with the inclusion criteria. Items show distinctions with reporting proportions among seven RIGHT domains. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 75.4% for basic information, 63.1% for background, 42.9% for evidence, 55.1% for recommendations, 42.9% for review and quality assurance, 26.2% for funding and declaration and management of interests, and 50.8% for other information. Discussion: The average reporting quality of the recently published guidelines for HNC was moderate. Our research would help optimize the development processes of guidelines, resulting in high-quality guidelines for healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.