Incorrect Disclosure in: Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

The 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/0004867420979353 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 55 (1) ◽

pp. 7-117 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Gin S Malhi ◽

Erica Bell ◽

Darryl Bassett ◽

Philip Boyce ◽

Richard Bryant ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

New Zealand ◽

Mood Disorders ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Bipolar Disorders ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Zealand College

Objectives: To provide advice and guidance regarding the management of mood disorders, derived from scientific evidence and supplemented by expert clinical consensus to formulate s that maximise clinical utility. Methods: Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (e.g. books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Relevant information was appraised and discussed in detail by members of the mood disorders committee, with a view to formulating and developing consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders. Results: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists mood disorders clinical practice guidelines 2020 (MDcpg2020) provide up-to-date guidance regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The guideline is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, primary care physicians and others with an interest in mental health care. Conclusion: The MDcpg2020 builds on the previous 2015 guidelines and maintains its joint focus on both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus. Mood disorders committee: Gin S Malhi (Chair), Erica Bell, Darryl Bassett, Philip Boyce, Richard Bryant, Philip Hazell, Malcolm Hopwood, Bill Lyndon, Roger Mulder, Richard Porter, Ajeet B Singh and Greg Murray.

Download Full-text