IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0110469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements in Oncology – An Assessment of Their Methodological Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Carmel Jacobs
  • Ian D Graham
  • Julie Makarski
  • Michaël Chassé
  • Dean Fergusson
  • Brian Hutton
  • Mark Clemons

Abstract

Background: Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine’s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Methods: Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Findings: Thirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal’s consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases. Conclusion: Guidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor’s product to enhance transparency.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmel Jacobs & Ian D Graham & Julie Makarski & Michaël Chassé & Dean Fergusson & Brian Hutton & Mark Clemons, 2014. "Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements in Oncology – An Assessment of Their Methodological Quality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110469
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110469
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110469&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0110469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda, 2011. "Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-6, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda & Rongwei Fu, 2013. "Conflicts of Interest among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    2. Joanne Khabsa & Jennifer Petkovic & Alison Riddle & Lyubov Lytvyn & Olivia Magwood & Pearl Atwere & Pauline Campbell & Srinivasa V. Katikireddi & Bronwen Merner & Mona Nasser & Stephanie Chang & Aleja, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    3. Damien Wyssa & Martin R Tramèr & Nadia Elia, 2019. "Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Lisa Bero, 2018. "Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-4, April.
    5. Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez & Iván Pastor Sanz, 2021. "Mapping the (anti-)corruption field: key topics and changing trends, 1968–2020," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 851-881, November.
    6. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    7. Jeffrey Sonis & Olivia M Chen, 2020. "Approval processes in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines sponsored by medical specialty societies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-9, February.
    8. Tanya Graham & Phil Alderson & Tim Stokes, 2015. "Managing Conflicts of Interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines Programme: Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Brittany U Burda & Lauren A Ogden & Rongwei Fu, 2012. "Conflict of Interest Policies for Organizations Producing a Large Number of Clinical Practice Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-12, May.
    10. Wang, Zhicheng & Bero, Lisa & Grundy, Quinn, 2021. "Understanding professional stakeholders’ active resistance to guideline implementation: The case of Canadian breast screening guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    11. Yidan Lu & Derek J Jones & Nour Sharara & Tonya Kaltenbach & Loren Laine & Kenneth McQuaid & Roy Soetikno & Venkataraman Subramanian & Alan Barkun, 2017. "Transparency ethics in practice: Revisiting financial conflicts of interest disclosure forms in clinical practice guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-11, August.
    12. Cristina Morciano & Vittorio Basevi & Carla Faralli & Michele Hilton Boon & Sabina Tonon & Domenica Taruscio, 2016. "Policies on Conflicts of Interest in Health Care Guideline Development: A Cross-Sectional Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Shelley S Selph & Rongwei Fu, 2012. "Conflict of Interest Disclosures for Clinical Practice Guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    14. Tao Liu & Benjamin Quasinowski & André Soares, 2020. "The Emulation and Adaptation of a Global Model of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Chronic Heart Failure in BRICS Countries: A Comparative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Sheryl Spithoff & Pamela Leece & Frank Sullivan & Nav Persaud & Peter Belesiotis & Liane Steiner, 2020. "Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.