RT Generic
T1 Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting
A1 Maes-Carballo, Marta
A1 Mignini, Luciano
A1 Martin-Diaz, Manuel
A1 Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
A1 Khan, Khalid Saeed
K1 AGREE II
K1 Breast cancer screening
K1 Clinical practice guidelines
K1 Consensus statements
K1 Quality
K1 Recommendations
AB Introduction 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 <50%). The guidances thatdeployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) andreporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scoredbetter (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004).Conclusion: BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. Morethan half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematicreviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.
PB Wiley
SN 0961-5423
YR 2022
FD 2022-03-08
LK https://hdl.handle.net/10668/25964
UL https://hdl.handle.net/10668/25964
LA en
DS RISalud
RD Sep 23, 2025