Anogenital HPV-Related Cancers in Women: Investigating Trends and Sociodemographic Risk Factors.

The incidences of anogenital HPV-related cancers in women are on the rise; this is especially true for anal cancer. Medical societies are now beginning to recommend anal cancer screening in certain high-risk populations, including high-risk women with a history of genital dysplasia. The aim of this study is to investigate national anogenital HPV cancer trends as well as the role of demographics, deprivation, and ethnicity on anogenital cancer incidence in England, in an attempt to better understand this cohort of women which is increasingly affected by anogenital HPV-related disease. Demographic data from the Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset (COSD) were extracted for all patients diagnosed with anal, cervical, vulval and vaginal cancer in England between 2014 and 2020. Outcomes included age, ethnicity, deprivation status and staging. An age over 55 years, non-white ethnicity and high deprivation are significant risk factors for late cancer staging, as per logistic regression. In 2019, the incidences of anal and vulval cancer in white women aged 55-74 years surpassed that of cervical cancer. More needs to be done to educate women on HPV-related disease and their lifetime risk of these conditions.

AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions: appraisal instrument.

BACKGROUND: The Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was developed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that development, reporting, and appraisal of guidelines on surgical interventions may be better informed by modification of the instrument. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension specifically designed for appraisal of guidelines of surgical interventions. METHODS: In a three-part project funded by the United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, (i) we identified factors that were associated with higher quality of surgical guidelines, (ii) we statistically calibrated the AGREE II instrument in the context of surgical guidelines using correlation, reliability, and factor analysis, and (iii) we undertook a Delphi consensus process of stakeholders to inform the development of an AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions. RESULTS: Several features were prioritized by stakeholders as of particular importance for guidelines of surgical interventions, including development of a guideline protocol, consideration of practice variability and surgical expertise in different settings, and specification of infrastructures required to implement the recommendations. The AGREE-S-AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions has 25 items, compared to the 23 items of the original AGREE II instrument, organized into the following 6 domains: Scope and purpose, Stakeholders, Evidence synthesis, Development of recommendations, Editorial independence, and Implementation and update. As the original instrument, it concludes with an overall appraisal of the quality of the guideline and a judgement on whether the guideline is recommended for use. Several items were amended and rearranged among domains, and an item was deleted. The Rigor of Development domain of the original AGREE II was divided into Evidence Synthesis and Development of Recommendations. Items of the AGREE II domain Clarity of Presentation were incorporated in the new domain Development of Recommendations. Three new items were introduced, addressing the development of a guideline protocol, support by a guideline methodologist, and consideration of surgical experience/expertise. CONCLUSION: The AGREE-S appraisal instrument has been developed to be used for assessment of the methodological and reporting quality of guidelines on surgical interventions.

AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions - United European Gastroenterology and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery methodological guide.

BACKGROUND: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument has been developed to inform the methodology, reporting and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that the quality of surgical guidelines can be improved, and the structure and content of AGREE II can be modified to help enhance the quality of guidelines of surgical interventions. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of AGREE II specifically designed for guidelines of surgical interventions. METHODS: In the tripartite Guideline Assessment Project (GAP) funded by United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, (i) we assessed the quality of surgical guidelines and we identified factors associated with higher quality (GAP I); (ii) we applied correlation analysis, factor analysis and the item response theory to inform an adaption of AGREE II for the purposes of surgical guidelines (GAP II); and (iii) we developed an AGREE II extension for surgical interventions, informed by the results of GAP I, GAP II, and a Delphi process of stakeholders, including representation from interventional and surgical disciplines; the Guideline International Network (GIN); the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group; the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) initiative; and representation of surgical journal editors and patient/public. RESULTS: We developed AGREE-S, an AGREE II extension for surgical interventions, which comprises 24 items organized in 6 domains; Scope and purpose, Stakeholders, Evidence synthesis, Development of recommendations, Editorial independence, and Implementation and update. The panel of stakeholders proposed 3 additional items: development of a guideline protocol, consideration of practice variability and surgical/interventional expertise in different settings, and specification of infrastructures required to implement the recommendations. Three of the existing items were amended, 7 items were rearranged among the domains, and one item was removed. The domain Rigour of Development was divided into domains on Evidence Synthesis and Development of Recommendations. The new domain Development of Recommendations incorporates items from the original AGREE II domain Clarity of Presentation. CONCLUSION: AGREE-S is an evidence-based and stakeholder-informed extension of the AGREE II instrument, that can be used as a guide for the development and adaption of guidelines on surgical interventions.

Guideline Assessment Project II: statistical calibration informed the development of an AGREE II extension for surgical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines. METHODS: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.

Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members. METHODS: We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES. RESULTS: Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

Protocol of an interdisciplinary consensus project aiming to develop an AGREE II extension for guidelines in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) is an instrument that informs development, reporting and assessment of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has demonstrated the need for improvement in methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines specifically in surgery. We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension document for application in surgical guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have performed a structured literature review and assessment of guidelines in surgery using the AGREE II instrument. In exploratory analyses, we have identified factors associated with guideline quality. We have performed reliability and factor analyses to inform the development of an extension document. We will summarise this information and present it to a Delphi panel of stakeholders. We will perform iterative Delphi rounds and we will summarise the final results to develop the extension instrument in a dedicated consensus conference. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Funding bodies will not be involved in the development of the instrument. Research ethics committee and Health Research Authority approval was waived, since this is a professional staff study only and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by reassigning functions or replacing participants with relevant conflicts. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer reviewed journals, the funders' websites, social media and direct contact with guideline development organisations and peer-reviewed journals that publish guidelines.

Guideline Assessment Project: Filling the GAP in Surgical Guidelines: Quality Improvement Initiative by an International Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations, assess their quality, and investigate the association between defined factors and quality. The ultimate objective was to develop a framework to improve the quality of surgical guidelines. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence on the quality of surgical guidelines is lacking. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017. We investigated the association between the following factors and guideline quality, as assessed using the AGREE II instrument: number of guidelines published within the study period by a scientific organization, the presence of a guidelines committee, applying the GRADE methodology, consensus project design, and the presence of intersociety collaboration. RESULTS: Ten surgical scientific organizations developed 67 guidelines over the study period. The median overall score using AGREE II tool was 4 out of a maximum of 7, whereas 27 (40%) guidelines were not considered suitable for use. Guidelines produced by a scientific organization with an output of ≥9 guidelines over the study period [odds ratio (OR) 3.79, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-12.66, P = 0.048], the presence of a guidelines committee (OR 4.15, 95% CI, 1.47-11.77, P = 0.007), and applying the GRADE methodology (OR 8.17, 95% CI, 2.54-26.29, P < 0.0001) were associated with higher odds of being recommended for use. CONCLUSIONS: Development by a guidelines committee, routine guideline output, and adhering to the GRADE methodology were found to be associated with higher guideline quality in the field of surgery.