Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments

Brittany U. Burda, Susan L. Norris, Haley K. Holmer, Lauren A. Ogden, M. E Beth Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations on the frequency of mammography screening in asymptomatic, average-risk women 40-49 years of age. Study Design and Setting: We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and MEDLINE for guidelines published from 2005 to 2010. Five independent assessors rated the quality of each guideline and its underlying evidence review using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instruments, respectively. Results: Eleven guidelines were appraised. Ten referenced an underlying evidence review; two referenced the same review. Three reviews were rated good, one was moderate, and five were rated poor quality. On overall assessment of the quality of the guidelines, two were strongly recommended, two were recommended with provisos, and seven were either not recommended or the assessors were unsure whether to recommend it. Most guidelines clearly presented their recommendations, but the rigor of development, applicability, and stakeholder involvement varied. Seven guidelines recommended mammography screening as part of a periodic health examination and four recommended individualized screening in the target population. The latter four guidelines were based on good-quality reviews and three were recommended by the assessors. Conclusion: Guideline users need to be aware of the variability in quality and identify the high-quality guidelines that meet their needs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)968-976
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Mammography
Practice Guidelines
Guidelines
Health Services Needs and Demand
MEDLINE

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Clinical practice guidelines
  • Mammography
  • Mass screening
  • Prevention
  • Quality assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments. / Burda, Brittany U.; Norris, Susan L.; Holmer, Haley K.; Ogden, Lauren A.; Smith, M. E Beth.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 9, 09.2011, p. 968-976.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Burda, Brittany U. ; Norris, Susan L. ; Holmer, Haley K. ; Ogden, Lauren A. ; Smith, M. E Beth. / Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011 ; Vol. 64, No. 9. pp. 968-976.
@article{e5e1607ab3e14c0088509a11093ec326,
title = "Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations on the frequency of mammography screening in asymptomatic, average-risk women 40-49 years of age. Study Design and Setting: We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and MEDLINE for guidelines published from 2005 to 2010. Five independent assessors rated the quality of each guideline and its underlying evidence review using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instruments, respectively. Results: Eleven guidelines were appraised. Ten referenced an underlying evidence review; two referenced the same review. Three reviews were rated good, one was moderate, and five were rated poor quality. On overall assessment of the quality of the guidelines, two were strongly recommended, two were recommended with provisos, and seven were either not recommended or the assessors were unsure whether to recommend it. Most guidelines clearly presented their recommendations, but the rigor of development, applicability, and stakeholder involvement varied. Seven guidelines recommended mammography screening as part of a periodic health examination and four recommended individualized screening in the target population. The latter four guidelines were based on good-quality reviews and three were recommended by the assessors. Conclusion: Guideline users need to be aware of the variability in quality and identify the high-quality guidelines that meet their needs.",
keywords = "Breast cancer, Clinical practice guidelines, Mammography, Mass screening, Prevention, Quality assessment",
author = "Burda, {Brittany U.} and Norris, {Susan L.} and Holmer, {Haley K.} and Ogden, {Lauren A.} and Smith, {M. E Beth}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "968--976",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments

AU - Burda, Brittany U.

AU - Norris, Susan L.

AU - Holmer, Haley K.

AU - Ogden, Lauren A.

AU - Smith, M. E Beth

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

N2 - Objective: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations on the frequency of mammography screening in asymptomatic, average-risk women 40-49 years of age. Study Design and Setting: We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and MEDLINE for guidelines published from 2005 to 2010. Five independent assessors rated the quality of each guideline and its underlying evidence review using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instruments, respectively. Results: Eleven guidelines were appraised. Ten referenced an underlying evidence review; two referenced the same review. Three reviews were rated good, one was moderate, and five were rated poor quality. On overall assessment of the quality of the guidelines, two were strongly recommended, two were recommended with provisos, and seven were either not recommended or the assessors were unsure whether to recommend it. Most guidelines clearly presented their recommendations, but the rigor of development, applicability, and stakeholder involvement varied. Seven guidelines recommended mammography screening as part of a periodic health examination and four recommended individualized screening in the target population. The latter four guidelines were based on good-quality reviews and three were recommended by the assessors. Conclusion: Guideline users need to be aware of the variability in quality and identify the high-quality guidelines that meet their needs.

AB - Objective: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations on the frequency of mammography screening in asymptomatic, average-risk women 40-49 years of age. Study Design and Setting: We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and MEDLINE for guidelines published from 2005 to 2010. Five independent assessors rated the quality of each guideline and its underlying evidence review using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instruments, respectively. Results: Eleven guidelines were appraised. Ten referenced an underlying evidence review; two referenced the same review. Three reviews were rated good, one was moderate, and five were rated poor quality. On overall assessment of the quality of the guidelines, two were strongly recommended, two were recommended with provisos, and seven were either not recommended or the assessors were unsure whether to recommend it. Most guidelines clearly presented their recommendations, but the rigor of development, applicability, and stakeholder involvement varied. Seven guidelines recommended mammography screening as part of a periodic health examination and four recommended individualized screening in the target population. The latter four guidelines were based on good-quality reviews and three were recommended by the assessors. Conclusion: Guideline users need to be aware of the variability in quality and identify the high-quality guidelines that meet their needs.

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Clinical practice guidelines

KW - Mammography

KW - Mass screening

KW - Prevention

KW - Quality assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960834253&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960834253&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 21420280

AN - SCOPUS:79960834253

VL - 64

SP - 968

EP - 976

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 9

ER -