Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

Zhigang Zhang; Xiao Cao; Qi Wang; Qiuyu Yang; Mingyao Sun; Long Ge; Jinhui Tian

doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.890951

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

Front Oncol. 2022 May 27:12:890951. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.890951. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Zhigang Zhang^{1

2}, Xiao Cao³, Qi Wang⁴, Qiuyu Yang³, Mingyao Sun³, Long Ge^{4

5}, Jinhui Tian^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
² Department of Intensive Care Unit, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
³ Evidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁴ Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁵ The Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Transformation in Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

Abstract

Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge.

Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined.

Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%).

Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

Keywords: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II); Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare checklist (RIGHT checklist); cancer pain; clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); quality.

Publication types

Review