Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument. Results: Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8–100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8–96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1–92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50–100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5–87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8–100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as “recommended with modifcations” for clinical use. Conclusions: Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.