Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Aug;278(8):2961-2973. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06423-8. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

Abstract

Background: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations.

Methods: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol.

Results: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: "scope and purpose" 74.1% (6-100.0%); "stakeholder" 78.6% (0-100.0%); "rigor of development" 71.4% (0-100.0%); "clarity of presentation" 71.4% (6-100.0%); "applicability" 50.0% (0-85.7%); "editorial independence" 57.1% (14.3-85.7%) and "overall assessment" 57.1% (14.3-100.0%).

Conclusion: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.

Keywords: Chemotherapy; Guideline; Mouth neoplasms; Neoplasm staging; Oral cancer; Radiotherapy; Surgery; Therapeutics.

MeSH terms

  • Carcinoma, Squamous Cell* / diagnosis
  • Carcinoma, Squamous Cell* / therapy
  • Head and Neck Neoplasms*
  • Humans
  • Mouth Neoplasms* / diagnosis
  • Mouth Neoplasms* / therapy
  • Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck