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

ABSTRACT

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.