4.6 Review

Quality assessment of the guidelines for the management of malignant pleural effusions and ascites

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-02097-y

Keywords

Malignant pleural effusion; Malignant ascites; Guideline appraisal

Funding

  1. Yunnan health training project of high level talents [H2017038]
  2. Kunming Medical University training project of 100 talents [60117190466]
  3. Joint special project of Yunnan Provincial Department of Science and Technology and Kunming Medical University [2019FE001-167]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To fully assess the quality of the guidelines for the management of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) and ascites and reveal the heterogeneity of recommendations and possible reasons among guidelines. Methods A systematic search was performed in the database to obtain guidelines for the management of MPE and ascites. The AGREE IIGtool was used to assess the quality of these guidelines. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement (MSRA) was introduced to assess the scientific agreement of formulated recommendations for the management of MPE and ascites among guidelines, and evidence supporting these recommendations was extracted and analyzed. Results Nine guidelines were identified. Only 4 guidelines scored more than 60% and are worth recommending. Recommendations were also heterogeneous among guidelines for the management of MPE, and the main reasons were the different emphases of the recommendations for the treatment of MPE, the contradictions in recommendations, and the unreasonably cited evidence for MPE. Conclusions The quality of the management guidelines for patients with MPE and malignant ascites was highly variable. Specific improvement of the factors leading to the heterogeneity of recommendations will be a reasonable and effective way for developers to upgrade the recommendations in the guidelines for MPE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available