Optimizing Perioperative Care in Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery: Considerations for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To identify key recommendations for maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of perioperative care in transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. METHODS: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols implemented for patients undergoing transsphenoidal adenomectomy (TSA); individual recommendations were abstracted, and the evidence base thoroughly reviewed. RESULTS: The authors identified 19 individual recommendations pertinent to the care of patients undergoing TSA, which were subdivided into preoperative (n=6), intraoperative (n=6), and postoperative (n=7) interventions. Key factors recommended for minimizing length of stay, preventing readmission, and improving patient outcomes included comprehensive patient education, multidisciplinary evaluation, avoidance of routine lumbar drain placement and nasal packing, and rigorous postoperative monitoring of pituitary function and salt-water imbalances. The overall level of evidence for 7/19 (37%) implemented recommendations was found to be low, suggesting a need for continued research in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Several key interventions should be considered in the development of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols for TSA, which may aid in further decreasing length of stay and promoting positive patient outcomes.

Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults / Revisão crítica das diretrizes de prática clínica para avaliação de massas cervicais em adultos

Abstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average" or ‟low". The ‟Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.

Resumo Introdução: Várias diretrizes de práticas clínicas foram produzidas e divulgadas para a avaliação de massa cervical. Porém, até o momento, a qualidade e o rigor metodológico dessas diretrizes de práticas clínicas não foram avaliados. Objetivo: Identificar e avaliar a qualidade metodológica das diretrizes nacionais e internacionais para a avaliação e tratamento de massas cervicais em adultos. Método: Fizemos uma pesquisa abrangente das fontes de dados Embase, Medline/PubMed, Scopus e literatura cinza até setembro de 2020. A qualidade dessas diretrizes foi avaliada por quatro revisores com a 2a edição do Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Os escores dos domínios foram considerados de qualidade aceitável se pontuassem >60% e os coeficientes de correlação intraclasse (Intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC) foram calculados para avaliar a concordância entre os avaliadores. Resultados: Sete diretrizes foram investigadas para avaliação. Entre elas, apenas a American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), o Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB) e a American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) obtiveram uma classificação geral ‟alta". As quatro diretrizes restantes obtiveram classificações ‟media" ou ‟baixa". O domínio ‟Escopo e objetivo'" obteve o maior escore médio (94,4% ± 5,0%) e o domínio ‟Aplicabilidade" obteve o menor escore (51,5%±29,2%). A análise ICC mostrou concordância substancial a muito boa em todos os domínios (0,75-0,98). Conclusão: Esses achados destacam a variabilidade na qualidade metodológica das diretrizes para avaliação e tratamento de massa cervical em adultos. Os resultados dessa análise destacam a necessidade de melhorar o processo de desenvolvimento de diretrizes para esse tópico e podem orientar a seleção e o uso dessas diretrizes na prática clínica.

Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Management of Breakthrough Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Instrument.

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.

Critical review of clinical practice guidelines for evaluation of neck mass in adults.

OBJECTIVE: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. RESULTS: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of "high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either "average" or "low". The "Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was "Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.