ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: an assessment based on the AGREE II, AGREE-REX tools and the RIGHT checklist.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Double-Helix Drainage Tube Securement Patch for Patients Undergoing Head and Neck Surgery.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to obtain several published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and critically assess and compare their quality by using three guideline quality evaluation tools, namely, AGREE II, AGREE-REX, and RIGHT, to support the development of future CPGs for HNSCC. Methods: Clinical practice guidelines related to the diagnosis and treatment of HNSCC were screened through a comprehensive systematic literature search. Data were extracted from the guidelines which met the inclusion criteria, and two experienced head and neck oncology surgeons were trained to act as independent reviewers. The quality of the retrieved guidelines that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria was evaluated by using the AGREE II, AGREE-REX, and RIGHT tools. Then, the quality of the guidelines that met the criteria was assessed. Finally, conclusions and recommendations were drawn based on the scoring results. Results: A total of eight guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Four guidelines(written by ASCO, NCCN, CCO and KCE) scored > 60% in five or more AGREE II quality domains, two guidelines(written by ASCO and KCE) scored > 60% in all AGREE-REX quality domains, and two guidelines(written by ASCO and KCE) scored > 60% in all quality domains on the RIGHT checklist and were considered "recommendable". Conclusions: The authors recommend consulting the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for HNSCC and suggest that future guideline development groups refer to the guideline evaluation framework for guideline writing to enhance the applicability and effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines.
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.