A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements.

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs). METHODS: Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88. RESULTS: SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes. METHODS: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement. RESULTS: There were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document. CONCLUSION: More than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.

Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review.

Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.