[Quality assessment of guidelines and consensus in lung cancer chemotherapy].

Objective: To understand the current status of clinical guidelines and consensus for lung cancer chemotherapy, evaluate and analyze the quality of lung cancer chemotherapy treatment guidelines, and provide references for the revision and improvement of lung cancer chemotherapy clinical decision-making and guidelines. Methods: Search Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Library), China Knowledge Network, Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database and other related databases and clinical practice guidelines related to lung cancer chemotherapy, and screen the literatures according to the established inclusion exclusion criteria. Use the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) and reporting items for practice guidelines in healthcare (RIGHT) tools to compare and evaluate the quality of the included guides and the level of reporting specifications. Results: A total of 14 guidelines were included. The assessment results of AGREE Ⅱ showed that the average score of scope and purpose was 94 points, the average score of stakeholder involvement was 60 points, the average score of rigour of development was 43 points, the average score of clarity of presentation was 88 points, the average score of applicability was 50 points, the average score of editorial independence was 61 points. Seven guidelines were evaluated as A level, 6 guidelines were evaluated as B level, 1 guideline was evaluated as C level. The assessment results of RIGHT showed that, in addition to the basic information, the included guidelines have many deficiencies in 6 areas including background, evidence, recommendation, review and quality assurance, funding, declaration and management of interests and other information, and the normative gap between domestic and foreign guides was large. Conclusions: The overall quality of clinical guidelines for lung cancer chemotherapy is high, but the standardization needs to be strengthened. There is a big gap between the quality and standardization of domestic and foreign guides. Further developments of high-quality clinical practice guidelines and guidelines consistent with our country's actual situation are needed.

[Systematic review of methodological quality and reporting quality in gastric cancer screening guidelines].

Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations, and provide a reference for the update of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations in China. Methods: "guidelines/consensus/specifications/standards" , "stomach/gastric tumors" , "screening/diagnosis" , "guideline/recommendation" , "gastric cancer/gastric tumor," "early detection of cancer/screening" were searched as keywords in PubMed, Embase, Web of knowledge, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library, as well as the US Preventive Services Working Group, the American Cancer Society, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Australia Cancer Council and the International Guide Collaboration Network at the end of July 2018. The inclusion criteria were independent guidelines/recommendation documents for gastric cancer screening. The exclusion criteria were guideline abstracts, interpretation and evaluation literature, duplicate publications, updated original guidelines, and clinical treatment or practice guidelines for gastric cancer. The language was limited to Chinese and English. The European Guide to Research and Evaluation Tools (AGREE Ⅱ) and Practice Guideline Reporting Standard (RIGHT) for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines/Recommendations were used to compare and evaluate the quality and reporting standard of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations. Results: A total of five guides/recommendations were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of five guides/recommendations was different, including one recommended for "A", one for "B", and three for "C". Each guide/recommendation scored higher in the scope and purpose, clarity, and scores were more significant in the areas of rigor and independence. In the participants, the application field scores were generally low. The RIGHT evaluation results showed that the quality of five guides/recommendations should be improved. The six items with poor report quality were background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and conflict of interest statement and management, and other aspects. Conclusion: The quality of the included gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations is generally low, and the standardization should be strengthened.

[Systematic review of the methodology quality and reporting quality in colorectal cancer screening guidelines].

Objective: To systematically review the quality and reporting quality of colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and to provide reference for the update of colorectal cancer screening guidelines and colorectal cancer screening in China. Methods: "Colorectal cancer", "colorectal tumor", "screening", "screening", "guide", "consensus", "Colorectal cancer", "Colorectal neoplasms", "Screening", "Early Detection of Cancer", "Guideline" and "recommendation" were used as search keywords. The literature retrieval for all the Chinese and English guidelines published before April 2018 was conducted by using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Cochrane Library, Guideline International Network, China Guidelines Clearinghouse (CGC) and the official website of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Australia Cancer Council (ACC) and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI). The inclusion criteria were independent guidance documents for colorectal cancer screening. The language is limited to Chinese and English. The exclusion criteria were literature on interpretation, evaluation, introduction, etc., as well as the translated version of the guide and old guides. The quality and reporting norms of colorectal cancer screening guidelines were compared and evaluated using the European Guideline Research and Assessment Tool (AGREE Ⅱ) and the Practice Guideline Reporting Standard (RIGHT). Results: A total of 15 guides were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of 15 guides was high. Among them, there were 9 guides with an overall score of 50 or more, 10 with a recommendation level of "A", and 2 with a rating of "B". There were 3 guides for "C"; each guide scores higher in scope and purpose, and clarity, and scores vary greatly in the areas of participants, rigor, applicability, and independence. The results of the RIGHT evaluation showed that 15 guides were insufficient in six areas except for background information, evidence, recommendations, reviews and quality assurance, funding and conflict of interest statements and management, and other aspects. Conclusion: The overall quality of included guidelines for colorectal cancer screening is high, but the normative nature needs to be strengthened.