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.

10.1200/JCO.2012.46.8371 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1200/JCO.2012.46.8371 C5073383!5073383!23752105     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Clin+Oncol 2013 ; 31 (20): 2563-8 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=23752105|t=2013. Critical Evaluation of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines |pdf=|usr=}}{{23752105}} gab.com Text Critical Evaluation of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines JO: J Clin Oncol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=23752105 #FOAvip Purpose: Significant concerns exist regarding the content and reliability of oncology clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report ?Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust? established standards for developing trustworthy CPGs. By using these standards as a benchmark, we sought to evaluate recent oncology guidelines. Methods: CPGs and consensus statements addressing the screening, evaluation, or management of the four leading causes of cancer-related mortality in the United States (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers) published between January 2005 and December 2010 were identified. A standardized scoring system based on the eight IOM standards was used to critically evaluate the methodology, content, and disclosure policies of CPGs. All CPGs were given two scores; points were awarded for eight standards and 20 subcriteria. Results: No CPG fully met all the IOM standards. The average overall scores were 2.75 of 8 possible standards and 8.24 of 20 possible subcriteria. Less than half the CPGs were based on a systematic review. Only half the CPG panels addressed conflicts of interest. Most did not comply with standards for inclusion of patient and public involvement in the development or review process, nor did they specify their process for updating. CPGs were most consistent with IOM standards for transparency, articulation of recommendations, and use of external review. Conclusion: The vast majority of oncology CPGs fail to meet the IOM standards for trustworthy guidelines. On the basis of these results, there is still much to be done to make guidelines as methodologically sound and evidence-based as possible. Twit Text FOAVip Critical Evaluation of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines ????J Clin Oncol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=23752105 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=23752105 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|23752105}}</ref> Critical Evaluation of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines #MMPMID23752105 Reames BN; Krell RW; Ponto SN; Wong SL J Clin Oncol 2013[Jul]; 31 (20): 2563-8 PMID23752105show ga Purpose: Significant concerns exist regarding the content and reliability of oncology clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report ?Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust? established standards for developing trustworthy CPGs. By using these standards as a benchmark, we sought to evaluate recent oncology guidelines. Methods: CPGs and consensus statements addressing the screening, evaluation, or management of the four leading causes of cancer-related mortality in the United States (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers) published between January 2005 and December 2010 were identified. A standardized scoring system based on the eight IOM standards was used to critically evaluate the methodology, content, and disclosure policies of CPGs. All CPGs were given two scores; points were awarded for eight standards and 20 subcriteria. Results: No CPG fully met all the IOM standards. The average overall scores were 2.75 of 8 possible standards and 8.24 of 20 possible subcriteria. Less than half the CPGs were based on a systematic review. Only half the CPG panels addressed conflicts of interest. Most did not comply with standards for inclusion of patient and public involvement in the development or review process, nor did they specify their process for updating. CPGs were most consistent with IOM standards for transparency, articulation of recommendations, and use of external review. Conclusion: The vast majority of oncology CPGs fail to meet the IOM standards for trustworthy guidelines. On the basis of these results, there is still much to be done to make guidelines as methodologically sound and evidence-based as possible. äCritical Evaluation of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing