Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 7:6:e43821.
doi: 10.2196/43821.

The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Mahnoor Khalid  1 , Bethany Sutterfield  2 , Kirstien Minley  2 , Ryan Ottwell  2 , McKenna Abercrombie  3 , Christopher Heath  3 , Trevor Torgerson  2 , Micah Hartwell  2 , Matt Vassar  2
Affiliations

The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Mahnoor Khalid et al. JMIR Dermatol. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates.

Objective: Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion.

Results: Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs.

Conclusions: SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.

Keywords: clinical; clinical practice guidelines; cutaneous melanoma; decision making; evidence; management; melanoma; practice guideline; review; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: MV reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, the Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences—all outside of the present work. MH reports funding from the National Institutes of Justice for unrelated work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of selection process for included clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kredo T, Bernhardsson S, Machingaidze S, Young T, Louw Q, Ochodo E, Grimmer K. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Feb;28(1):122–8. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzv115. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26796486 mzv115 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Murad MH. Clinical practice guidelines: a primer on development and dissemination. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Mar;92(3):423–433. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.01.001. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(17)30025-3/full... S0025-6196(17)30025-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wakkee M, Lugtenberg M, Spuls PI, de Jong EM, Thio HB, Westert GP, Nijsten T. Knowledge, attitudes and use of the guidelines for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis among Dutch dermatologists. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Aug;159(2):426–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08692.x.BJD8692 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taba P, Rosenthal M, Habicht J, Tarien H, Mathiesen M, Hill S, Bero L. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in Estonia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 13;12:455. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-455. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-12... 1472-6963-12-455 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aran G, Hicks C, Demand A, Johnson AL, Beaman J, Bailey Y, Haught M, Lane A, Sinnett P, Vassar M. Treating schizophrenia: the quality of evidence behind treatment recommendations and how it can improve. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Aug;25(4):138–142. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111233.bmjebm-2019-111233 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources