| 郭兰伟,李江,陈亚敏,刘茵,李贺,曹毛毛,何思怡,张韶凯,陈万青.全球上消化道癌筛查指南的质量评价[J].中华流行病学杂志,2021,42(7):1318-1324 |
| 全球上消化道癌筛查指南的质量评价 |
| Quality assessment of guidelines on upper gastrointestinal cancer screening |
| 收稿日期:2020-08-05 出版日期:2021-07-29 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200805-01023 |
| 中文关键词: 食管肿瘤 胃肿瘤 癌症早期检测 指南 系统综述 |
| 英文关键词: Neoplasm, esophagus Neoplasm, stomach Early detection of cancer Guidelines Systematic review |
| 基金项目:国家重点研发计划（2018YFC1313100） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2537 |
| 全文下载次数: 985 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 系统评价国内外现有上消化道癌（包括食管癌和胃癌）筛查指南的方法学质量，为今后同类指南的制定和更新提供标准和参考依据。方法 本研究系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国临床指南文库、PubMed、The Cochrane Library和Embase等数据平台建库至2020年8月发表的文献，并同时检索国际癌症研究机构、国际指南协作网的机构官网刊登的指南作为补充。纳入标准为食管癌或胃癌筛查的独立指南，且符合美国医学研究所对指南的定义；排除标准包括指南的摘要、解读及评价类文献、重复发表、已更新的原始版指南以及食管癌或胃癌临床治疗或实践指南。采用指南研究和评估工具（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）对上消化道癌筛查指南的质量和报告规范程度进行比较和评价。结果 共纳入6篇食管癌筛查指南，5篇胃癌筛查指南。AGREE Ⅱ质量评价结果显示，11篇指南整体质量参差不齐，其中推荐等级为"A"的有2篇、等级为"B"的有1篇、等级为"C"的有5篇、等级为"D"的有3篇；各指南在范围和目的、清晰性领域得分较高，食管癌筛查指南在严谨性、独立性领域得分差异较大，胃癌筛查指南在参与人员、应用性领域得分普遍较低。RIGHT评价结果显示，11篇指南报告质量有待提高，报告质量较差的6个条目分别为背景、证据、推荐意见、评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突以及其他方面。结论 纳入的上消化道癌筛查指南的质量整体一般，规范性有待加强。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of screening guidelines for upper gastrointestinal cancer (including esophageal cancer and gastric cancer) both at home and abroad, and provide reference for the update of upper gastrointestinal cancer screening guidelines in China. Methods Original articles and grey literature published as of 31th Aug 2020 were retrieved using Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database and China Guideline Clearinghouse), PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Embase, as well as those from International Agency for Research on Cancer and the International Guide Collaboration Network. The inclusion criteria were being independent guidelines/recommendation documents for upper gastrointestinal cancer screening and meeting the definition of the institute of Medicine, USA. The exclusion criteria were being guideline abstracts, interpretation and evaluation literature, duplicate publications, updated original guidelines, and clinical treatment or practice guidelines for esophageal or gastric cancer. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅱ) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) were used to compare and evaluate the quality and reporting standard of esophageal or gastric cancer screening guidelines. Results A total of 6 esophageal cancer screening guidelines and 5 gastric cancer screening guidelines were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of eleven guidelines varied, including two guidelines recommended for "A", one for "B", five for "C" and three for "D". The guidelines had higher scores in the areas of scope and purpose, and clarity. The esophageal cancer screening guidelines had different scores in the areas of rigor and independence. The gastric cancer screening guidelines generally had low scores in the areas of participants and application. The RIGHT evaluation results showed that the quality of eleven guidelines 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 others. Conclusion The quality of the included upper gastrointestinal cancer screening guidelines is general, and the standardization needs to be strengthened. |
|
查看全文
Html全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
