Determinants Used to Justify the Strength of Recommendations among Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: A standardized systematic approach to grade evidence and the strength of recommendations is important for guideline users to minimize bias and help interpret the most suitable decisions at the point of care. The study aims to identify and classify determinants used to make judgement for the strength of recommendations among 56 Korean clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and explore strong recommendations based on low quality of evidence. METHODS: Determinants used in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach among 34 CPGs which have reported both strength of recommendations and level of evidence were reviewed. RESULTS: Five of 34 CPGs (14.7%) considered quality of evidence, benefits and harms, patients' values and preferences, and costs. And 24 of 34 CPGs (70.6%) considered both magnitude of effect and feasibility as additional determinants. Judgement table was not widely provided for use to translate evidence into recommendations. Eighty-two of 121 recommendations (67.8%, ranged 20.0% to 100.0%) among 11 CPGs using the same judgement scheme showed 'strong' strength of recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence. Among 5 paradigmatic situations that justify strong recommendations based on low or very low evidence, situation classified as 'potential equivalence, one option clearly less risky or costly' was 87.8% for 82 strong recommendations. Situation classified as 'uncertain benefit, certain harm' was 4.9%. CONCLUSION: There is a need to introduce and systematize an evidence-based grading system. Using judgement table to justify the strength of recommendations and applying the 5 paradigmatic situations mentioned above is also recommended in the near future.

Massage with or without aromatherapy for symptom relief in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Massage and aromatherapy massage are used to relieve cancer-related symptoms. A number of claims have been made for these treatments including reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, and stress. Other studies have not shown these benefits. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of massage with or without aromatherapy on pain and other symptoms associated with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trials registries up to August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed Cancer Subset, SADCCT, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting the effects of aromatherapy or massage therapy, or both, in people with cancer of any age. We applied no language restrictions. Comparators were massage (using carrier oil only) versus no massage, massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus no massage, and massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus massage without aromatherapy (using carrier oil only). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data relating to pain and other symptoms associated with cancer, using standardised forms. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (21 reports) of very low quality evidence with a total of 1274 participants. We included 14 studies (16 reports) in a qualitative synthesis and five studies in a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Thirteen studies (14 reports, 596 participants) compared massage with no massage. Six studies (seven reports, 561 participants) compared aromatherapy massage with no massage. Two studies (117 participants) compared massage with aromatherapy and massage without aromatherapy. Fourteen studies had a high risk of bias related to sample size and 15 studies had a low risk of bias for blinding the outcome assessment. We judged the studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall. Our primary outcomes were pain and psychological symptoms. Two studies reported physical distress, rash, and general malaise as adverse events. The remaining 17 studies did not report adverse events. We downgraded the GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes to very low because of observed imprecision, indirectness, imbalance between groups in many studies, and limitations of study design. Massage versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain and anxiety but the quality of evidence was very low as most studies were small and considered at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Short-term pain (Present Pain Intensity-Visual Analogue Scale) was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 72, mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.67 to -0.53). Data for anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-state) relief showed no significant difference in anxiety between the groups (three RCTs, n = 98, combined MD -5.36, 95% CI -16.06 to 5.34). The subgroup analysis for anxiety revealed that the anxiety relief for children was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -14.70, 95% CI -19.33 to -10.07), but the size of this effect was considered not clinically significant. Furthermore, this review demonstrated no differences in effects of massage on depression, mood disturbance, psychological distress, nausea, fatigue, physical symptom distress, or quality of life when compared with no massage. Massage with aromatherapy versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain, anxiety, symptoms relating to the breast, and quality of life but the quality of evidence was very low as studies were generally at a high risk of bias. There was some indication of benefit in the aromatherapy-massage group but this benefit is unlikely to translate into clinical benefit. The relief of medium- and long-term pain (medium-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 5.30, 95% CI 1.52 to 9.08; long-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 3.80, 95% CI 0.19 to 7.41), anxiety (two RCTs, n = 253, combined MD -4.50, 95% CI -7.70 to -1.30), and long-term symptoms relating to the breast in people with breast cancer (one RCT, n = 86, MD -9.80, 95% CI -19.13 to -0.47) was greater for the aromatherapy-massage group, but the results were considered not clinically significant. The medium-term quality of life score was lower (better) for the aromatherapy-massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.54). Massage with aromatherapy versus massage without aromatherapy groupsFrom the limited evidence available, we were unable to assess the effect of adding aromatherapy to massage on the relief of pain, psychological symptoms including anxiety and depression, physical symptom distress, or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of massage for symptom relief in people with cancer. Most studies were too small to be reliable and key outcomes were not reported. Any further studies of aromatherapy and massage will need to address these concerns.

Methodological Quality Appraisal of 27 Korean Guidelines Using a Scoring Guide Based on the AGREE II Instrument and a Web-based Evaluation.

This study evaluated the methodological quality of CPGs using the Korean AGREE II scoring guide and a web-based appraisal system and was conducted by qualified appraisers. A total of 27 Korean CPGs were assessed under 6 domains and 23 items on the AGREE II instrument using the Korean scoring guide. The domain scores of the 27 guidelines were as following: the mean domain score was 82.7% (median 84.7%, ranging from 55.6% to 97.2%) for domain 1 (scope and purpose); 53.4% (median 56.9%, ranging from 11.1% to 95.8%) for domain 2 (stakeholder involvement); 63.0% (median 71.4%, ranging from 13.5% to 90.6%) for domain 3 (rigor of development); 88.9% (median 91.7%, ranging from 58.3% to 100.0%) for domain 4 (clarity of presentation); 30.1% (median 27.1%, ranging from 3.1% to 67.7%) for domain 5 (applicability); and 50.2% (median 58.3%, ranging from 0.0% to 93.8%) for domain 6 (editorial independence). Three domains including scope and purpose, rigor of development, and clarity of presentation were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score. Three domains including stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence were rated at less than 60% of the scaled domain score. Finally, of the 27 guidelines, 18 (66.7%) were rated at more than 60% of the scaled domain score for rigor of development and were categorized as high-quality guidelines.