Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting

dc.contributor.authorMaes-Carballo, Marta
dc.contributor.authorMignini, Luciano
dc.contributor.authorMartin-Diaz, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorBueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
dc.contributor.authorKhan, Khalid Saeed
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Maes-Carballo, Marta] Complexo Hosp Univ Ourense, Breast Canc Unit, Dept Gen Surg, Calle Ramon Puga Noguerol,54, Orense 32005, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Maes-Carballo, Marta] Hosp Publ Verin, Dept Gen Surg, Orense, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Maes-Carballo, Marta] Univ Granada, Dept Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Granada, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora] Univ Granada, Dept Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Granada, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Khan, Khalid Saeed] Univ Granada, Dept Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Granada, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Mignini, Luciano] Grp Orono, Unidad Mastol, Rosario, Argentina
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Martin-Diaz, Manuel] Hosp Motril, Dept Gen Surg, Granada, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora] CIBERESP, CIBER Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Madrid, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Khan, Khalid Saeed] CIBERESP, CIBER Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Madrid, Spain
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora] IBS, Inst Invest Biosanitaria, Granada, Spain
dc.contributor.funderMinistry of Science, Innovation, and University of Granada/Consorcio de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Andalucia (CBUA)
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-07T13:56:11Z
dc.date.available2025-01-07T13:56:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-23
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting. Methods A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively. Results Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39-63) and 48% (IQR 35-65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ecc.13540
dc.identifier.essn1365-2354
dc.identifier.issn0961-5423
dc.identifier.pmid34951075
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/ecc.13540
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10668/25964
dc.identifier.wosID733581100001
dc.issue.number2
dc.journal.titleEuropean journal of cancer care
dc.journal.titleabbreviationEur. j. cancer care
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationSAS - Hospital Santa Ana
dc.organizationInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (ibs.GRANADA)
dc.publisherWiley
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectAGREE II
dc.subjectbreast cancer screening
dc.subjectclinical practice guidelines
dc.subjectconsensus statements
dc.subjectquality
dc.subjectRIGHT
dc.subjectRecommendations
dc.subjectOverdiagnosis
dc.subjectReliability
dc.subjectBenefits
dc.subjectHarms
dc.subjectWomen
dc.subjectRisk
dc.titleClinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting
dc.typereview
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number31
dc.wostypeReview

Files