ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify the characteristics of the published clinical practice guidelines for the management of epithelial ovarian cancer that suggest a good methodological quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature review was performed on 25 clinical practice guidelines for epithelial ovarian cancer that were identified in different databases (MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, National Guidelines Clearing house) published between 2007 and 2014. The quality of the guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between the quality of the guidelines and of some of their features and their developers. RESULTS: Just under half (48%) of the guidelines were rated as low quality. Scientific societies or independent centres and private funding, or under-reporting the source of funding, were statistically associated with lower quality of clinical practice guidelines (P<.01). The guidelines developed by National Program Guidelines had a median of consistently higher scores in all domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II, with significant differences in the definition of scope and objectives, the participation of stakeholders, the methodological rigour of development, and applicability to the context. CONCLUSIONS: Features such as the nature of the developer and funding of the guidelines are predictors of quality that should be taken into account prior to the use of the recommendations of a document.
