Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38396102›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Clinical practice guidelines for the nutrition of colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.

Cheng Chang, Jiao Sun, Xiaosu Zhao, Si Chen, Dongpo Song, Lijie Wang, Yang Yang, Ruling Huang, Haijia Zhang, Jing Du

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cheng ChangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Jiao SunSchool of Nursing, Jilin University, No.965 Xinjiang Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Xiaosu ZhaoThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China. zhaoxiaosu@jlu.edu.cn.
Si ChenThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Dongpo SongSchool of Nursing, Jilin University, No.965 Xinjiang Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Lijie WangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Yang YangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Ruling HuangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Haijia ZhangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Jing DuThe First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 1 Xinmin Street, ChangchunJilin, 130021, China.
Jilin University · CNFirst Hospital of Jilin University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to rigorously assess the methodological quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to nutrition among colorectal cancer patients, to compile consensus recommendations, and to evaluate the quality of the included CPGs.

methodsThe systematic search covered eight electronic databases, two relevant professional association websites, and six guideline websites from their inception up to January 22, 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, and then, consensus recommendations were synthesized. The scores for each domain were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Using the mean score as the benchmark for comparison, they were subsequently ranked from highest to lowest. The included guidelines were then categorized as having "high," "moderate," or "low" quality based on their scores.

resultsThe literature search yielded ten guidelines. The findings indicated that the "Clarity of presentation" domain had the highest mean score (65.2 ± 7.7). This demonstrates how the guidelines effectively articulate recommendations. Additionally, the "Scope and purpose" domain achieved a mean score of 60.7 ± 10.9, followed by "Rigor of development" (51.7 ± 15.7), "Editorial independence" (51.1 ± 21), "Stakeholder involvement" (48 ± 16.8), and "Applicability" domains (47.5 ± 17.3). Two CPGs received an overall rating of "high quality" and were recommended; four CPGs received an overall rating of "moderate" and were recommended with modifications; and four CPGs received an overall rating of "low quality" and were not recommended. Furthermore, this study compiled twenty consensus recommendations related to nine distinct clinical issues.

conclusionThis study identified disparities in the methodological quality of the included CPGs, particularly in the "Applicability" domain, thus emphasizing the need for advancement in clinical feasibility and implementation. Notably, there is few guidelines specifically targeting colorectal cancer nutrition. These synthesized findings provided an intuitive, convenient, and comprehensive reference for evaluating nutrition among colorectal cancer patients. When applying these results, users should make careful decisions based on their specific situations.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansClinical practice guidelinesColorectal cancerGuideline appraisalNutritionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38396102
OpenAlexW4392139233

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.