Systematic appraisal of guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

This review aimed at assessing current guidelines' methodological quality systematically for pancreatic cancer's diagnosis and to reveal the heterogeneity of the recommendations among the evaluated guidelines. A systematic search was conducted to find the latest guidelines for pancreatic cancer's diagnosis. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the qualified guidelines' feature. We extracted the main recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from the guidelines and performed a heterogeneity evaluation. The highest-level evidence that supported these recommendations was further extracted and analysed. Nine guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were included in this study. Four of the guidelines had an overall score of more than 60% and thus are recommended for clinical use. Further analysis of the heterogeneity of the main recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in the guidelines revealed that the recommendations vary greatly among the different guidelines. The main reasons for the great differences include the neglect of symptoms and signs, great differences in the items involved in recommendations for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, inconsistent recommendations for some indicators (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and ERCP), the unreasonable citation of evidence, and the failure of some recommendations to provide evidence supporting the recommendations. For most recommendations, there was a low level of evidence and a dearth of high-quality study evidence. Recommendations for pancreatic cancer diagnosis have been significantly inconsistent over the past five years. The quality of the guidelines for diagnosing pancreatic cancer also varies. The improvement by the guideline creators of the factors that contribute to the differences mentioned above will be a shortcut to update the guidelines for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Consensus and controversy among severe pancreatitis surgery guidelines: a guideline evaluation based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.

The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate guidelines for surgery in patients with severe pancreatitis and to identify gaps limiting evidence-based medicine practice. A systematic search of databases and related websites was conducted to identify surgical guidelines for patients with severe pancreatitis. The quality of the included guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The similarities among key recommendations were compared, and the evidence supporting them was extracted and analysed. Seven surgical guidelines for patients with severe pancreatitis were included. Only two guidelines, those of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), scored more than 60% for overall quality and were worthy of clinical recommendation. We found that the quality of the severe acute pancreatitis surgical guidelines have much room for improvement, especially in the field of application, the participation of stakeholders and editorial independence. The heterogeneity and causes of surgical recommendations were further analysed, and the latest evidence was retrieved. It was found that the surgical guidelines for severe pancreatitis lacked high-quality evidence, some of the recommendations were controversial, and evidence citation was unreasonable. The quality of surgical guidelines for patients with severe pancreatitis varies widely. In the past 5 years, the key recommendations of the surgical guidelines for severe pancreatitis have been somewhat consistent and controversial, and improvement in these existing problems and controversies will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the surgical guidelines for severe pancreatitis.