[Quality assessment of global colorectal cancer screening guidelines and consensus]

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines/consensus and provide lights for drafting CRC screening guidelines in China. Methods: The literature retrieval for all the Chinese and English guidelines published before September 1^st, 2020 was conducted by using Chinese/English databases, such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Guideline International Network, and supplement with the official website of multiple regions, such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society. We utilized The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) approaches to assess the quality of CRC screening guidelines/consensus comprehensively. Results: After quality control, a total of 19 guidelines/consensus released by the United States, China, Australia, Canada, Britain, South Korea, and International organizations are successfully included, and strikingly, most of those belong to the United State(7). The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation show that the average scores of scope and purpose (87.5%) and clarity of presentation (89.6%) are high. In contrast, there are deficient in stakeholder involvement (47.0%), the rigor of development (42.3%), applicability (47.5%), and editorial independence (50.2%). Among all the guidelines, there are 12 with an overall score of 50 or more, 13 with a recommendation level of "A", 2 with a rating of "B" and 4 with a rating of "C". Additionally, the RIGHT evaluation revealed that the average report rate in each field is necessary information (76.3%), background (77.0%), evidence (55.8%), recommendations (59.4%), review and quality assurance (26.3%), funding and declaration and management of interests (43.4%), other information (49.1%). Among all the guidelines, six have good reporting quality, whereas the additional 13 have general or weak evidence. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicates that the quality of guidelines in developed countries is superior to that of China. Conclusion: The number of CRC screening guidelines/consensus is increasing gradually, and the overall quality of those is high, but the normative nature is warranted to be strengthened.