Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Chorath,Kevin
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Prasad,Aman, Luu,Neil, Go,Beatrice, Moreira,Alvaro, Rajasekaran,Karthik
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942022000400625
Resumo: Abstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high”. The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average” or ‟low”. The ‟Scope and Purpose” domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability” (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75–0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.
id ABORL-F-1_13124cb66b6198b6e06a30eaac98052f
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1808-86942022000400625
network_acronym_str ABORL-F-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
repository_id_str
spelling Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adultsNeck massCervical lymphadenopathyGuidelineConsensusAGREE IIAbstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high”. The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average” or ‟low”. The ‟Scope and Purpose” domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability” (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75–0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial.2022-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942022000400625Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology v.88 n.4 2022reponame:Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngologyinstname:Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial (ABORL-CCF)instacron:ABORL-CCF10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.03.005info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessChorath,KevinPrasad,AmanLuu,NeilGo,BeatriceMoreira,AlvaroRajasekaran,Karthikeng2022-08-10T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1808-86942022000400625Revistahttp://www.bjorl.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevista@aborlccf.org.br||revista@aborlccf.org.br1808-86861808-8686opendoar:2022-08-10T00:00Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial (ABORL-CCF)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
title Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
spellingShingle Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
Chorath,Kevin
Neck mass
Cervical lymphadenopathy
Guideline
Consensus
AGREE II
title_short Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
title_full Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
title_fullStr Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
title_full_unstemmed Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
title_sort Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults
author Chorath,Kevin
author_facet Chorath,Kevin
Prasad,Aman
Luu,Neil
Go,Beatrice
Moreira,Alvaro
Rajasekaran,Karthik
author_role author
author2 Prasad,Aman
Luu,Neil
Go,Beatrice
Moreira,Alvaro
Rajasekaran,Karthik
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Chorath,Kevin
Prasad,Aman
Luu,Neil
Go,Beatrice
Moreira,Alvaro
Rajasekaran,Karthik
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Neck mass
Cervical lymphadenopathy
Guideline
Consensus
AGREE II
topic Neck mass
Cervical lymphadenopathy
Guideline
Consensus
AGREE II
description Abstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high”. The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average” or ‟low”. The ‟Scope and Purpose” domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability” (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75–0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942022000400625
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942022000400625
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.03.005
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology v.88 n.4 2022
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
instname:Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial (ABORL-CCF)
instacron:ABORL-CCF
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial (ABORL-CCF)
instacron_str ABORL-CCF
institution ABORL-CCF
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
collection Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial (ABORL-CCF)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revista@aborlccf.org.br||revista@aborlccf.org.br
_version_ 1754575995172552704