乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿临床实践指南的评价。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Lymphatic research and biology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1089/lrb.2022.0090
Naomi D Dolgoy, Mona M Al Onazi, Joanna F Parkinson, Haukur Gudmundsson, Lori L Radke, Liz Dennett, Kristin L Campbell, Susan R Harris, David Keast, Margaret L McNeely
{"title":"乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿临床实践指南的评价。","authors":"Naomi D Dolgoy,&nbsp;Mona M Al Onazi,&nbsp;Joanna F Parkinson,&nbsp;Haukur Gudmundsson,&nbsp;Lori L Radke,&nbsp;Liz Dennett,&nbsp;Kristin L Campbell,&nbsp;Susan R Harris,&nbsp;David Keast,&nbsp;Margaret L McNeely","doi":"10.1089/lrb.2022.0090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Approaches to screening, assessment, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) vary widely. We evaluated overall quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for managing BCRL using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and relevance of consensus recommendations for the Canadian health context. <b><i>Methods and Results:</i></b> We searched electronic databases, gray literature, national lymphedema frameworks, and expert opinions, to identify lymphedema CPGs, printed/published from January 2013 to October 2021. Using AGREE II, six health care professionals reviewed CPGs for consensus. Domain-specific AGREE II quality consensus scores were required (≥70% for Rigor of Development; ≥ 60% for Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence; and ≥50% for Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, Scope, and Purpose). Results and overall recommendations from the CPGs were summarized and synthesized. Nine CPGs met inclusion criteria for review. Wide variability of evidence-based recommendations, and limited clinical considerations were found. Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation were adequate in six of nine CPGs; Stakeholder Involvement in seven of nine CPGs; and Editorial Independence in three of nine CPGs. Across all CPGs, Applicability was minimally reported. Only the Queensland Health CPG met quality consensus scores for Rigor and Development; however, the focus was limited to compression therapy. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> No CPG reviewed could be adopted for the Canadian health context. The proposed Canadian BCRL CPG will focus on stakeholder engagement, methodology, and implementation/evaluation. Using AGREE II allowed for assessment of quality of methods used to develop identified CPGs from other countries before consideration of adoption in a Canadian Context.</p>","PeriodicalId":18168,"journal":{"name":"Lymphatic research and biology","volume":" ","pages":"469-478"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.\",\"authors\":\"Naomi D Dolgoy,&nbsp;Mona M Al Onazi,&nbsp;Joanna F Parkinson,&nbsp;Haukur Gudmundsson,&nbsp;Lori L Radke,&nbsp;Liz Dennett,&nbsp;Kristin L Campbell,&nbsp;Susan R Harris,&nbsp;David Keast,&nbsp;Margaret L McNeely\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/lrb.2022.0090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Approaches to screening, assessment, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) vary widely. We evaluated overall quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for managing BCRL using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and relevance of consensus recommendations for the Canadian health context. <b><i>Methods and Results:</i></b> We searched electronic databases, gray literature, national lymphedema frameworks, and expert opinions, to identify lymphedema CPGs, printed/published from January 2013 to October 2021. Using AGREE II, six health care professionals reviewed CPGs for consensus. Domain-specific AGREE II quality consensus scores were required (≥70% for Rigor of Development; ≥ 60% for Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence; and ≥50% for Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, Scope, and Purpose). Results and overall recommendations from the CPGs were summarized and synthesized. Nine CPGs met inclusion criteria for review. Wide variability of evidence-based recommendations, and limited clinical considerations were found. Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation were adequate in six of nine CPGs; Stakeholder Involvement in seven of nine CPGs; and Editorial Independence in three of nine CPGs. Across all CPGs, Applicability was minimally reported. Only the Queensland Health CPG met quality consensus scores for Rigor and Development; however, the focus was limited to compression therapy. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> No CPG reviewed could be adopted for the Canadian health context. The proposed Canadian BCRL CPG will focus on stakeholder engagement, methodology, and implementation/evaluation. Using AGREE II allowed for assessment of quality of methods used to develop identified CPGs from other countries before consideration of adoption in a Canadian Context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lymphatic research and biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"469-478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lymphatic research and biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.0090\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lymphatic research and biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.0090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿(BCRL)的筛查、评估和治疗方法千差万别。我们使用重新搜索和评估指南评估II(AGREE II)工具评估了管理BCRL的临床实践指南(CPG)的总体质量,以及加拿大健康背景下共识建议的相关性。方法和结果:我们检索了电子数据库、灰色文献、国家淋巴水肿框架和专家意见,以确定2013年1月至2021年10月印刷/出版的淋巴水肿CPG。使用AGREE II,六名医疗保健专业人员审查了CPG以达成共识。特定领域的AGREE II质量共识得分是必需的(开发的严格性≥70%;利益相关者的参与和编辑独立性≥60%;演示的清晰度、适用性、范围和目的≥50%)。对CPG的结果和总体建议进行了总结和综合。9个CPG符合纳入审查标准。发现循证建议的变异性很大,临床考虑因素有限。九个国别方案中有六个方案的范围和目的以及介绍的清晰度足够;利益相关者参与九个CPG中的七个;九个CPG中有三个具有编辑独立性。在所有CPG中,报告的适用性最低。只有昆士兰卫生CPG达到Rigor and Development的质量共识分数;然而,重点仅限于压迫治疗。结论:在加拿大的健康背景下,不能采用审查过的CPG。拟议的加拿大BCRL CPG将侧重于利益相关者的参与、方法和实施/评估。使用AGREE II可以在考虑在加拿大范围内采用之前,评估用于开发其他国家确定的CPG的方法的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

Background: Approaches to screening, assessment, and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) vary widely. We evaluated overall quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for managing BCRL using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and relevance of consensus recommendations for the Canadian health context. Methods and Results: We searched electronic databases, gray literature, national lymphedema frameworks, and expert opinions, to identify lymphedema CPGs, printed/published from January 2013 to October 2021. Using AGREE II, six health care professionals reviewed CPGs for consensus. Domain-specific AGREE II quality consensus scores were required (≥70% for Rigor of Development; ≥ 60% for Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence; and ≥50% for Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, Scope, and Purpose). Results and overall recommendations from the CPGs were summarized and synthesized. Nine CPGs met inclusion criteria for review. Wide variability of evidence-based recommendations, and limited clinical considerations were found. Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation were adequate in six of nine CPGs; Stakeholder Involvement in seven of nine CPGs; and Editorial Independence in three of nine CPGs. Across all CPGs, Applicability was minimally reported. Only the Queensland Health CPG met quality consensus scores for Rigor and Development; however, the focus was limited to compression therapy. Conclusions: No CPG reviewed could be adopted for the Canadian health context. The proposed Canadian BCRL CPG will focus on stakeholder engagement, methodology, and implementation/evaluation. Using AGREE II allowed for assessment of quality of methods used to develop identified CPGs from other countries before consideration of adoption in a Canadian Context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lymphatic research and biology
Lymphatic research and biology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Lymphatic Research and Biology delivers the most current peer-reviewed advances and developments in lymphatic biology and pathology from the world’s leading biomedical investigators. The Journal provides original research from a broad range of investigative disciplines, including genetics, biochemistry and biophysics, cellular and molecular biology, physiology and pharmacology, anatomy, developmental biology, and pathology. Lymphatic Research and Biology coverage includes: -Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis -Genetics of lymphatic disorders -Human lymphatic disease, including lymphatic insufficiency and associated vascular anomalies -Physiology of intestinal fluid and protein balance -Immunosurveillance and immune cell trafficking -Tumor biology and metastasis -Pharmacology -Lymphatic imaging -Endothelial and smooth muscle cell biology -Inflammation, infection, and autoimmune disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信