Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1002/cncr.29124 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/cncr.29124 C4339394!4339394!25376967     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Cancer 2015 ; 121 (5): 783-9 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=25376967|t=2015. Critical Evaluation of the Scientific Content in Clinical Practice Guidelines |pdf=|usr=}}{{25376967}} gab.com Text Critical Evaluation of the Scientific Content in Clinical Practice Guidelines JO: Cancer http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25376967 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Increasing pressures to provide high quality evidence-based cancer care have driven the rapid proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The quality and validity of CPGs have been questioned and adherence to guidelines is relatively low. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the development process and scientific content of CPGs. METHODS: CPGs addressing management of rectal cancer were evaluated. We quantitatively assessed guideline quality with the validated Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. We identified 21 independent processes of care using the Nominal Group Technique. We then compared the evidence base and scientific agreement for the management recommendations for these processes of care. RESULTS: The quality and content of rectal cancer CPGs varied widely. Mean overall AGREE II scores ranged from 27?90%. Across the five CPGs, average scores were highest for the clarity of presentation domain (85%, range 58% to 99%) and lowest for the applicability domain (21%, range 8% to 56%). Randomized controlled trials represented a small proportion of citations (median 18%, range 13?35%), 78% of the recommendations were based on low or moderate quality evidence, and the CPGs only had 11 references in common with the highest rated CPG. There were conflicting recommendations for 13 of the 21 care processes assessed (62%). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in CPG development processes and scientific content. With conflicting recommendations between CPGs, there is no reliable resource to guide high-quality evidence-based cancer care. The quality and consistency of CPGs are in need of improvement. Twit Text FOAVip Critical Evaluation of the Scientific Content in Clinical Practice Guidelines ????Cancer http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25376967 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25376967 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|25376967}}</ref> Critical Evaluation of the Scientific Content in Clinical Practice Guidelines #MMPMID25376967 Abdelsattar ZM; Reames BN; Regenbogen SE; Hendren S; Wong SL Cancer 2015[Mar]; 121 (5): 783-9 PMID25376967show ga BACKGROUND: Increasing pressures to provide high quality evidence-based cancer care have driven the rapid proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The quality and validity of CPGs have been questioned and adherence to guidelines is relatively low. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the development process and scientific content of CPGs. METHODS: CPGs addressing management of rectal cancer were evaluated. We quantitatively assessed guideline quality with the validated Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. We identified 21 independent processes of care using the Nominal Group Technique. We then compared the evidence base and scientific agreement for the management recommendations for these processes of care. RESULTS: The quality and content of rectal cancer CPGs varied widely. Mean overall AGREE II scores ranged from 27?90%. Across the five CPGs, average scores were highest for the clarity of presentation domain (85%, range 58% to 99%) and lowest for the applicability domain (21%, range 8% to 56%). Randomized controlled trials represented a small proportion of citations (median 18%, range 13?35%), 78% of the recommendations were based on low or moderate quality evidence, and the CPGs only had 11 references in common with the highest rated CPG. There were conflicting recommendations for 13 of the 21 care processes assessed (62%). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in CPG development processes and scientific content. With conflicting recommendations between CPGs, there is no reliable resource to guide high-quality evidence-based cancer care. The quality and consistency of CPGs are in need of improvement. äCritical Evaluation of the Scientific Content in Clinical Practice Gui(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing