Differential research impact in cancer practice guidelines’ evidence base: lessons from ESMO, NICE and SIGN

Background This is an appraisal of the impact of cited research evidence underpinning the development of cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by the professional bodies of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Methods A total of 101 CPGs were identified from ESMO, NICE and SIGN websites across 13 cancer sites. Their 9486 cited references were downloaded from the Web of Science Clarivate Group database, analysed on Excel (2016) using Visual Basic Application macros and imported onto SPSS (V.24.0) for statistical tests. Results ESMO CPGs mostly cited research from Western Europe, while the NICE and SIGN ones from the UK, Canada, Australia and Scandinavian countries. The ESMO CPGs cited more recent and basic research (eg, drugs treatment), in comparison with NICE and SIGN CPGs where older and more clinical research (eg, surgery) papers were referenced. This chronological difference in the evidence base is also in line with that ESMO has a shorter gap between the publication of the research and its citation on the CPGs. It was demonstrated that ESMO CPGs report more chemotherapy research, while the NICE and SIGN CPGs report more surgery, with the results being statistically significant. Conclusions We showed that ESMO, NICE and SIGN differ in their evidence base of CPGs. Healthcare professionals should be aware of this heterogeneity in effective decision-making of tailored treatments to patients, irrespective of geographic location across Europe.

[1]  S. Hendren,et al.  Critical evaluation of the scientific content in clinical practice guidelines , 2015, Cancer.

[2]  K. Chalkidou.  About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE. , 2013, Acta medica portuguesa.

[3]  G. Lewison,et al.  An analysis of research activity in major UK cancer centres. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[4]  G. Lewison,et al.  Understanding the impact of public policy on cancer research: a bibliometric approach. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[5]  R. Stahel,et al.  Heterogeneity in cancer guidelines: should we eradicate or tolerate? , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  G. Lewison,et al.  The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines , 2008, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  E. Hendriks,et al.  Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development. , 2006, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[8]  B. Ltd.,et al.  Do evidence-based guidelines improve the quality of care? , 2005 .

[9]  Beatrice Fervers,et al.  Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology. , 2005, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[10]  Grant Lewison,et al.  The classification of biomedical journals by research level , 2004, Scientometrics.

[11]  Melissa C Brouwers,et al.  KEEPING CANCER GUIDELINES CURRENT: RESULTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PROSPECTIVE LITERATURE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR TWENTY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[12]  Grant Lewison,et al.  The publication of cancer research papers in high impact journals , 2003, Aslib Proc..

[13]  B. Fervers,et al.  European cooperation for clinical practice guidelines in cancer , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  R. Grol,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines: towards better quality guidelines and increased international collaboration , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[15]  G. Darling.  The impact of clinical practice guidelines and clinical trials on treatment decisions. , 2002, Surgical oncology.

[16]  B. Fervers,et al.  Critical appraisal of the Minimal Clinical Recommendations (MCR) of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO): challenges for a European framework for the development of clinical practice guidelines. , 2002, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[17]  T. Walley,et al.  Monitoring Financial Flows for Health Research. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research, World Health Organization, 2001. 57pp. ISBN 2-940286- 05-1. [The full text is available on the web site http://www.globalforumhealth.org] , 2002 .

[18]  G. Browman,et al.  Development and aftercare of clinical guidelines: the balance between rigor and pragmatism. , 2001, JAMA.

[19]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? , 2001, JAMA.

[20]  R. Grol.  Successes and Failures in the Implementation of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Clinical Practice , 2001, Medical care.

[21]  Jeremy M Grimshaw,et al.  When should clinical guidelines be updated? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Robert Cottrell,et al.  Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines , 1999, BMJ.

[24]  D L Sackett,et al.  Using research findings in clinical practice , 1998, BMJ.

[25]  N Freemantle,et al.  Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. , 1995, Quality in health care : QHC.

[26]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. , 1994, Lancet.

[27]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[28]  J. Burgers.  Guideline quality and guideline content: are they related? , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[29]  Julie M. Miller.  The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) , 2002 .

[30]  J. Wootton.  Clinical practice guidelines. , 1999, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[31]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines--do they enhance value for money in health care? , 1995, British medical bulletin.