Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.
Clinical practice guidelines
ESMO guidelines
Grade of recommendation
Level of evidence
Journal
Oncology research
ISSN: 1555-3906
Titre abrégé: Oncol Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9208097
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
22
12
2023
accepted:
29
02
2024
medline:
30
4
2024
pubmed:
30
4
2024
entrez:
30
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings. We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types. Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71%
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38686053
doi: 10.32604/or.2024.048948
pii: 48948
pmc: PMC11055998
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
807-815Informations de copyright
© 2024 Skelin et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.
Références
JAMA. 2019 Mar 19;321(11):1069-1080
pubmed: 30874755
BMJ. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1448-51
pubmed: 12065273
Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 15;148(2):429-436
pubmed: 32674225
Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 21;39(32):2932-2941
pubmed: 29688403
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 May;39(5):903-913
pubmed: 31901113
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 3;13(10):e0204720
pubmed: 30281671
JAMA. 2009 Feb 25;301(8):831-41
pubmed: 19244190
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Jul 15;33(2):139-44
pubmed: 11418871
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Nov 15;51(10):1147-56
pubmed: 20946067
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 10;29(2):186-91
pubmed: 21149653