RESUMEN
Abstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average" or ‟low". The ‟Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.
Resumo Introdução: Várias diretrizes de práticas clínicas foram produzidas e divulgadas para a avaliação de massa cervical. Porém, até o momento, a qualidade e o rigor metodológico dessas diretrizes de práticas clínicas não foram avaliados. Objetivo: Identificar e avaliar a qualidade metodológica das diretrizes nacionais e internacionais para a avaliação e tratamento de massas cervicais em adultos. Método: Fizemos uma pesquisa abrangente das fontes de dados Embase, Medline/PubMed, Scopus e literatura cinza até setembro de 2020. A qualidade dessas diretrizes foi avaliada por quatro revisores com a 2a edição do Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Os escores dos domínios foram considerados de qualidade aceitável se pontuassem >60% e os coeficientes de correlação intraclasse (Intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC) foram calculados para avaliar a concordância entre os avaliadores. Resultados: Sete diretrizes foram investigadas para avaliação. Entre elas, apenas a American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), o Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB) e a American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) obtiveram uma classificação geral ‟alta". As quatro diretrizes restantes obtiveram classificações ‟media" ou ‟baixa". O domínio ‟Escopo e objetivo'" obteve o maior escore médio (94,4% ± 5,0%) e o domínio ‟Aplicabilidade" obteve o menor escore (51,5%±29,2%). A análise ICC mostrou concordância substancial a muito boa em todos os domínios (0,75-0,98). Conclusão: Esses achados destacam a variabilidade na qualidade metodológica das diretrizes para avaliação e tratamento de massa cervical em adultos. Os resultados dessa análise destacam a necessidade de melhorar o processo de desenvolvimento de diretrizes para esse tópico e podem orientar a seleção e o uso dessas diretrizes na prática clínica.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. RESULTS: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of "high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either "average" or "low". The "Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was "Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.