Level of scientific evidence supporting NCCN guidelines: Is there evidence of progress?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Ronald S. Go ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Uterine Cancer ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
The Us ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations

14 Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in oncology by clinicians and payors in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines has not been studied since it’s last review in 2010. We describe the categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common cancers in the US as of 2019 and compare them with 2010 guidelines. Methods: We obtained the 2019 version of NCCN guidelines. The definitions for various categories of EC used were: Category 1 (high level evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus), 2A (lower level of evidence with uniform consensus), 2B (lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and 3 (any level of evidence but with major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0% while in 2010 they were 5%, 85%, 9% and 1% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in lung (13%), prostate (11%), melanoma (8%), breast (7%), NHL (5%), kidney (2%), bladder (2%) and colorectal (2%) guidelines. Pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines had no recommendations with category 1 EC. 19% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (65%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were breast (30%), lung (10%), and kidney (10%) cancers. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in screening or surveillance. Although we found an increase in the total number of recommendations, the distribution of different types of categories of EC are largely similar to 2010. Conclusions: Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely derived from lower levels of evidence with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in oncology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in oncology which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations Arising From the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thejaswi K. Poonacha ◽  
Ronald S. Go
Keyword(s):  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
High Level ◽  
Cancer Network

Purpose The level of scientific evidence on which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are based has not been systematically investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common cancers 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 as follows: category I, high level of evidence 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. Results Of the 1,023 recommendations found in the 10 guidelines, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III EC were 6%, 83%, 10%, and 1%, respectively. Recommendations with category I EC were found in kidney (20%), breast (19%), lung (6%), pancreatic (6%), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (6%), melanoma (6%), prostate (4%), and colorectal (1%) guidelines. Urinary bladder and uterine guidelines did not have any category I recommendations. Eight percent of all therapeutic recommendations were category I. Guidelines with the highest proportions of category I therapeutic recommendations were for breast (30%) and kidney (28%) cancers. No category I recommendations were found on screening or surveillance. Conclusion Recommendations issued in the NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. This underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand evidence base in oncology.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hematologic Malignancies: Are We Moving Forward?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
Cancer Network

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.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations Arising From the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 509-509
Author(s):  
Benny Kusuma ◽  
Ronald S. Go
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
Cancer Network

Abstract Abstract 509 Purpose: The level of scientific evidence on which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are based has not been systematically 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 as follows: category I, high level of evidence 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. Results: Of the 1160 recommendations found in the 10 guidelines, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III EC were 3%, 93%, 4%, and 0%, respectively. Recommendations with category I were found in acute myeloid leukemia (4%), multiple myeloma (7%), Hodgkin's lymphoma (1%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), follicular lymphoma (11%). Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, AIDS-related B-cell lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma did not have any category I recommendations. Three percent of all therapeutic recommendations were category I. Guideline with the highest proportion of category I therapeutic recommendations was for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (46%). No category I recommendations were found on staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. This underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand evidence base in oncology. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Evidence base for psychological treatment of personality disorder – a narrative review

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S278-S278
Author(s):  
Caoimhe Ni Shuilleabhain
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Current Evidence Base

AimsThis review critically appraises the up-to-date evidence base for psychological treatment of PD.BackgroundThe prevalence rate of any personality disorder (PD) in the general population has been estimated to be as high as 12% rising to over 70% in prison settings. PD is known to carry significant psychosocial and health burdens with increased mortality, increased suicide, increased substance misuse, increased crime, reduced capacity to work, poorer outcomes for comorbid mental disorders, dysfunctional engagement with services, and high economic costs through a high utilisation of healthcare systems. In the 1990s several manualised treatment strategies emerged, specifically for borderline PD. These include dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive analytic therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused psychotherapy, and schema-focussed therapy.MethodUsing relevant search criteria, literature was identified through a search of the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Data were appraised and synthesised to provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence base for psychological treatment of PD.ResultThe DSM-V defined Cluster B borderline PD has received the majority of attention. Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the Cluster B antisocial PD. Cluster A (Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal) and Cluster C PDs (Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive Compulsive) have received relatively little attention with few studies to draw upon regarding the effectiveness of therapy. The remaining Cluster B personality disorders (Narcissistic and Histrionic) have been criticised as having poor construct validity, with a lack of rigorously designed treatment trials.A number of treatment protocols have gained empirical support. However, of those that have empirical support, there appears to be little demonstrable evidence to suggest superiority of any one of the evidence-based interventions over another. While specialised therapies are more efficacious than “treatment as usual” or treatment delivered by expert clinicians, when specialised therapies are compared with well-specified manualised general psychiatric care tailored to personality disorder, the results are different, with little consistent evidence demonstrating the superiority of specialised therapies.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that individual therapies do not differ substantially from each other or from structured clinical care that relies on generic change factors. This is in keeping with established psychotherapy outcome literature. Current evidence would indicate that common features across the proven treatment strategies should be emphasised and implemented well. There may be justification for added interventions from specific treatment modalities targeted to specific patient problems.

Routine Postoperative Management of Blepharoplasty: A Review of Current Evidence-Based Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohsan Malik ◽  
Eamon Shamil ◽  
Alwyn Ray D'Souza
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Postoperative Management ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Search Criterion ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Facial Plastic ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Introduction Advances in blepharoplasty have resulted in an improved understanding of preoperative risk factors, intraoperative hemostasis, and wound closure. This has reduced the risk of severe adverse events. The aim of this review is to determine the current evidence base for routine postblepharoplasty management. Method A literature review was performed using MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE databases. Expanded search criterion “bleph*” was combined with individual terms assessing postoperative management. Articles were assessed and qualified as per Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine levels 1 to 5 (1 = highest level of evidence). Results A total of 47 unique articles matched our search strategy. Most articles were a description of individual expert opinion, surveys of practice, or case series (level 4–5 evidence). Few randomized controlled trials were performed (level 2). Conclusion Many articles describe the clinical experience of senior facial plastic surgeons. Our review found some evidence for postoperative cooling and preincision antisepsis to be effective. This review highlights the need for higher-quality studies to improve the evidence base for routine postoperative management.

scholarly journals Polyphenols and Cognition In Humans: An Overview of Current Evidence from Recent Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Joseph Lamport ◽  
Claire Michelle Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cognitive Outcome ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Cognitive Benefits ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

There is increasing interest in the impact of dietary influences on the brain throughout the lifespan, ranging from improving cognitive development in children through to attenuating ageing related cognitive decline and reducing risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Polyphenols, phytochemicals naturally present in a host of fruits, vegetables, tea, cocoa and other foods, have received particular attention in this regard, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies examining whether their consumption is associated with cognitive benefits. The purpose of this overview is to synthesise and evaluate the best available evidence from two sources, namely meta-analyses and systematic reviews, in order to give an accurate reflection of the current evidence base for an association between polyphenols and cognitive benefits. Four meta-analyses and thirteen systematic reviews published between 2017–2020 were included, and were categorised according to whether they reviewed specific polyphenol-rich foods and classes or all polyphenols. A requirement for inclusion was assessment of a behavioural cognitive outcome in humans. A clear and consistent theme emerged that whilst there is support for an association between polyphenol consumption and cognitive benefits, this conclusion is tentative, and by no means definitive. Considerable methodological heterogeneity was repeatedly highlighted as problematic such that the current evidence base does not support reliable conclusions relating to efficacy of specific doses, duration of treatment, or sensitivity in specific populations or certain cognitive domains. The complexity of multiple interactions between a range of direct and indirect mechanisms of action is discussed. Further research is required to strengthen the reliability of the evidence base.

scholarly journals P-26 Challenging the pressure on nhs resources: could 48-hour continuous subcutaneous infusions (CSCIS) help? a systematically-structured review of the current evidence base

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A9.3-A10
Author(s):  
James Baker ◽  
Andrew Dickman ◽  
Stephen Mason ◽  
John Ellershaw ◽  
Paul Skipper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

scholarly journals Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

2014 ◽  
Vol 204 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay P. Singh ◽  
Seena Fazel ◽  
Ralitza Gueorguieva ◽  
Alec Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Study Heterogeneity

BackgroundRates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.AimsTo analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.MethodA systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.ResultsInformation was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.ConclusionsAfter controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document