Search

Purpose: While several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist to guide clinical decision-making in patients with generalized cancer pain, to date there has been no comprehensive review of their quality. Our aim was to address this deficiency via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool., Design: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline-based systematic literature search followed by AGREE II appraisal of identified CPGs., Methods: Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 3, 2021, for relevant CPGs. Four authors (FR, AR, JN, JH) independently performed assessments and evaluations of the selected CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain percentage scores were calculated with 60% as the satisfactory quality threshold. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were also calculated to assess interrater reliability., Results: Twelve guidelines were selected for inclusion. Two guidelines were classified high quality, three guidelines as average quality, and seven as low quality. Domains of clarity of presentation (82.41% ± 18.20%) and scope and purpose (56.48% ± 30.59%) received the highest mean scores, while domains of applicability (44.53% ± 26.61%) and stakeholder involvement (36.81% ± 21.24%) received the lowest. ICCs showed high consistency between reviewers (range 0.85-0.98)., Conclusions: Most CPGs for generalized cancer pain are of low quality. Future guidelines can be improved by better-defining scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence during development., Clinical Implications: We hope these critiques improve the quality of published guidelines to promote an improved quality of care and method to measure quality outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), consensus statements, and recommendations currently exist for the diagnosis and management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). These documents have considerable variability amongst them, and to date, their quality and methodologic rigor have not been appraised., Aim: We aim to identify and perform a quality appraisal of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of BTcP using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases up until January 1, 2021. Four reviewers independently evaluated each guideline using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain scores were generated and the threshold used for satisfactory quality was >60%. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine level of agreement between reviewers., Results: Eleven guidelines were selected for final evaluation based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Only one guideline was classified of "average" quality while the rest were classified as "low" quality. The "Editorial Independence" (70.46 ± 35.7) and "Scope and Purpose" (64.78 ± 12.5) domains received the highest mean scores, while the "Applicability" (32.58 ± 13.5) and "Rigor of Development" (35.04 ± 9.0) domains received the lowest mean scores. ICC statistical analysis showed high magnitude of agreement between reviewers with a range of (0.790-0.988)., Conclusions: Reflecting upon our quality appraisal, it is evident that the quality and methodologic rigor of BTcP guidelines can be improved upon in the future. Our findings also elucidate the existing variability/discrepancies among guidelines in diagnostic criteria and management of BTcP., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)