2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03141-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidelines for uveal melanoma: a critical appraisal of systematically identified guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instrument

Abstract: Purpose Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of diseases. In orphan conditions such as uveal melanoma (UM), guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance even in the absence of high-quality evidence. Here, we assessed the methodological quality and identified deficiencies of international guidelines on UM as a base for future guideline development. Methods A systematic search was carried out in guideline databases, Medline and Embase until 27th … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then, six independent reviewers (A.W., F.H., A.H., M.K., E.K., F.T.) evaluated their methodological quality using AGREE II and AGREE-REX as described previously [ 16 ]. Using AGREE II, the quality of each of the 23 items was assessed on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (”strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) and similarly, the guideline’s overall quality was evaluated on a 7-point scale ranging from lowest to highest possible quality.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Then, six independent reviewers (A.W., F.H., A.H., M.K., E.K., F.T.) evaluated their methodological quality using AGREE II and AGREE-REX as described previously [ 16 ]. Using AGREE II, the quality of each of the 23 items was assessed on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (”strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) and similarly, the guideline’s overall quality was evaluated on a 7-point scale ranging from lowest to highest possible quality.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the question “I would recommend this guideline for use” was answered by each reviewer with “yes”, “yes, with modifications” or “no”. The 9 items supplied by AGREE-REX were also assessed on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“lowest quality”) to 7 (“highest quality”) as described previously [ 16 ]. All evaluations using AGREE II and AGREE-REX were blinded towards the other evaluators’ assessments and performed independently.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…independently collected relevant information on each guideline, including title, national authority/author and country of origin, publication date, methodological approach and its scope. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each guideline identified in the search using the evaluation tools AGREE II and AGREE-REX as recently described by the authors [40].…”
Section: Data Extraction and Rating Of The Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In relation to the treatment of UM metastasis, Mariani P [16], in 2012, advocated to resect metastatic foci, which was put forward on the premise of a lack of effective target molecule therapies, and in fact it is still a palliative therapy. The 2015 UK UM guidelines [17] and the 2020 Irish and German UM guidelines [18] contained no target therapies, and there are no FDA-approved UM target molecule therapeutic drugs in the USA, indicating that this research has not o cially been carried out clinically anywhere in the world. The reason for this is that although UM is clinically and biologically different from cutaneous melanoma (CM), most of the treatment options for advanced stage UM can refer to CM.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%