National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Global Utilization of Clinical Oncology Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The global influence and demand for clinical oncology guidelines is increasing. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and various other organizations develop clinical oncology guidelines, which are used across regions to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of cancer.1 Aim: To identify and analyze utilization trends of clinical oncology guidelines outside the US. Methods: In 2017, NCCN distributed an electronic survey to 212,423 registered users of the NCCN Web site outside the US through a third party software. Participants were prompted to respond to the following statement “I consult the following guidelines regularly: (Select all that apply).” Options included several clinical oncology guidelines, as well as the option “I do not regularly consult clinical oncology guidelines.” The survey also included the following query: “In my opinion, the NCCN Guidelines are: (select one per row).” The survey then listed several descriptors and the respondents were asked to select strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree for each one. Results: NCCN received 1698 responses to the survey from oncology professionals outside of the US. Of this pool, 82% of respondents identified as physicians and 18% were other oncology professionals. Of respondents to the first query (n=1190), 89% selected the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines), 55% ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines, 50% ASCO Guidelines, 20% National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, 15% local, national, or other oncology guidelines, 11% Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), 8% Cancer Care Ontario Guidelines, 7% Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), 6% Japanese Society of Medical Oncology Clinical Guidelines, and 6% do not regularly consult clinical oncology guidelines. In response to the second query (n=1392), more than 90% of respondents outside of the US “strongly agree” or “agree” that the NCCN Guidelines are useful in patient care decision-making, a reliable reference, up-to-date, objective and balanced, evidence-based, and helpful in clinical teaching. Conclusion: Based on data presented, NCCN Guidelines are consulted more frequently than any other clinical oncology guideline outside the US. Previous research indicates similar utilization trends. We believe, in part, healthcare professionals outside the US consult the NCCN Guidelines frequently due to the descriptors listed in the survey results. Additional research is needed to identify the synergies between the relevance of international clinical oncology guidelines and local utilization trends to better serve the needs of patients globally.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".