The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Q3 Medicine JMIR dermatology Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.2196/43821
Mahnoor Khalid, Bethany Sutterfield, Kirstien Minley, Ryan Ottwell, McKenna Abercrombie, Christopher Heath, Trevor Torgerson, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar
{"title":"The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis.","authors":"Mahnoor Khalid, Bethany Sutterfield, Kirstien Minley, Ryan Ottwell, McKenna Abercrombie, Christopher Heath, Trevor Torgerson, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.2196/43821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73553,"journal":{"name":"JMIR dermatology","volume":"6 ","pages":"e43821"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10739238/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/43821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates.

Objective: Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion.

Results: Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs.

Conclusions: SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持皮肤黑色素瘤管理临床实践指南的系统评价的报告和方法学质量:横断面分析。
背景:临床实践指南(CPGs)为临床环境中的循证决策提供信息;然而,为CPGs提供信息的系统评价(SRs)可能在报告和方法质量方面有所不同,这影响了对总效应估计的信心。目的:我们的目的是评估cpg中用于皮肤黑色素瘤的SRs的方法学和报告质量,并评估这些结果在Cochrane和非Cochrane综述之间的差异。方法:我们通过检索PubMed中2015年1月1日至2021年5月21日发表的皮肤黑色素瘤指南进行了横断面分析。接下来,我们提取了构成这些指南的SRs,并使用PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)和AMSTAR(评估系统评价的测量工具)清单评估了它们的报告和方法严谨性。最后,我们比较了Cochrane和非Cochrane SRs的这些结果。所有的筛选和数据提取都是以一种隐蔽的、重复的方式进行的。结果:在评估的SRs中,PRISMA检查表的平均完成率为66.5% (SD 12.29%), AMSTAR检查表的平均完成率为44.5% (SD 21.05%)。大多数SRs(19/50, 53%)的方法学质量极低,没有SRs被评价为高质量。结论:支持以皮肤黑色素瘤管理为重点的CPGs的SRs在报告和方法质量上各不相同,大多数SRs质量较低。增加对PRISMA和AMSTAR检查清单的依从性可能会提高SRs的质量,从而增加支持皮肤黑色素瘤CPGs的证据水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Comparative Sufficiency of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI in Answering Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis Questions About Common Dermatological Diagnoses. The Depth Estimation and Visualization of Dermatological Lesions: Development and Usability Study. Dermatology in Student-Run Clinics in the United States: Scoping Review. Improving Affordability in Dermatology: Cost Savings in Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Versus GoodRx. Dermatologic Data From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 and the PatientsLikeMe Online Support Community: Comparative Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1