Quality of clinical practice guidelines in dermatological oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly used. To determine the quality of guidelines the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was developed and introduced in 2001. The AGREE instrument consists of 23 criteria, grouped in six domains. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of quality of evidence-based guidelines in dermatological oncological care according to the AGREE instrument. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane literature and relevant websites of guidelines development programmes and the national dermatological society to identify evidence-based dermatological guidelines especially in the treatment of to basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma. Twenty guidelines, published between 1990 and 2005, were appraised according to the AGREE instrument by three authors. Standardized domain scores were calculated as advised by AGREE. We compared guidelines published before 2002 with those published later. RESULTS: Domain scores in the domains Scope & Purpose and Clarity were scored best. Applicability and Editorial Independence were scored worst (see Table 1). In time a weak trend towards better guidelines was seen. This trend can be attributed to better scores in the domains Search Strategy and Level of Evidence which are closely related to evidence-based medicine. The increase in score is due to more explicitly mentioning the search strategy, possible conflict of interest and involvement of different specialties in development of the guideline. Using the Mann-Whitney test to compare guidelines published before the AGREE and afterwards only a statistically significant better score was found for the domain Clarity (P < 0.05; Table 2). CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines in dermatological oncological care are of reasonable quality according to the AGREE instrument. The domains in the AGREE instrument concern especially the methods of development of guidelines. The score according to AGREE can be improved by explicitly mentioning the different items. As clinical guidelines are regarded to be an important instrument to improve quality of care, improvements are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.183 | 0.566 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".