Clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer: A critical appraisal - Abstract

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines are increasing being used by leading organizations to promote high quality evidence-based patient care.

However, the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines developed by different organizations varies considerably. We assessed published clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of localized prostate cancer to evaluate the rigor, applicability and transparency of their recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for English based clinical practice guidelines on treatment of localized prostate cancer from leading organizations in the 15-year period from 1999 to 2014. Clinical practice guidelines limited to early detection, screening, staging and/or diagnosis of prostate cancer were excluded from analysis. Four independent reviewers used the validated AGREE II instrument to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines in 6 domains, including 1) scope and purpose, 2) stakeholder involvement, 3) rigor of development, 4) clarity of presentation, 5) applicability and 6) editorial independence.

RESULTS: A total of 13 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria. Overall the highest median scores were in the AGREE II domains clarity of presentation, editorial independence, and scope and purpose. The lowest median score was for applicability (28.1%). Although the median score of editorial independence was high (85.4%), variability was also substantial (IQR 12.5-100). NICE and AUA clinical practice guidelines consistently scored well in most domains.

CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines from different organizations on treatment of localized prostate cancer are of variable quality and fall short of current standards in certain areas, especially in applicability and stakeholder involvement. Improvements in these key domains can enhance the impact and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Written by:
Gupta M, McCauley J, Farkas A, Gudeloglu A, Neuberger MM, Ho YY, Yeung L, Vieweg J, Dahm P.   Are you the author?
Department of Urology, University of Florida, Florida; University of Minnesota and Urology Section, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida; Department of Urology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.  

Reference: J Urol. 2014 Nov 4. pii: S0022-5347(14)04811-3.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.105

 
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25451831

Beyond the Abstract: Exclusive commentary direct from the authors

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe