-
1دورية أكاديمية
المؤلفون: Kevin Chorath, Aman Prasad, Neil Luu, Beatrice Go, Alvaro Moreira, Karthik Rajasekaran
المصدر: Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, Vol 88, Iss 4, Pp 625-632 (2022)
مصطلحات موضوعية: Neck mass, Cervical lymphadenopathy, Guideline, Consensus, AGREE II, Otorhinolaryngology, RF1-547
الوصف: Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of “high”. The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either “average” or “low”. The “Scope and Purpose” domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4% ± 5.0%), and lowest was “Applicability” (51.5% ± 29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75–0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.
وصف الملف: electronic resource
العلاقة: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869421000641Test; https://doaj.org/toc/1808-8694Test
-
2
المؤلفون: Karthik Rajasekaran, Alvaro Moreira, Beatrice Go, Kevin Chorath, Neil N. Luu, Aman Prasad
المصدر: Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 88:625-632
مصطلحات موضوعية: Adult, Clinical Oncology, medicine.medical_specialty, business.industry, Intraclass correlation, Neck mass, Academies and Institutes, MEDLINE, Guideline, United States, Clinical Practice, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Physical therapy, Humans, Pharynx, Medicine, Agree ii, medicine.symptom, 030223 otorhinolaryngology, business
الوصف: Objective Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of “high”. The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either “average” or “low”. The “Scope and Purpose” domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4% ± 5.0%), and lowest was “Applicability” (51.5% ± 29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75–0.98). Conclusion These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.
الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::e8d6e0337625f5822a9efb62e48eac62Test
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.03.005Test