Vassar, M. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2018

Evaluation of the NCCN guidelines using the RIGHT Statement and AGREE II instrument: a cross-sectional review.

IntroductionRobust, clearly reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for evidence-based clinical practice. The Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument were published to improve the methodological and reporting quality in healthcare CPGs.\n\nMethodsWe applied the RIGHT statement checklist and AGREE II instrument to 48 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Our primary objective was to assess the adherence to RIGHT and AGREE II items. Since neither RIGHT nor AGREE-II can judge the clinical usefulness of a guideline, our study is designed to only focus on the methodological and reporting quality of each guideline.\n\nResultsThe NCCN guidelines demonstrated notable strengths and weaknesses. For example, RIGHT statement items 19 (conflicts of interest), 7b (description of subgroups), and 13a (clear, precise recommendations) were fully reported in all guidelines. However, the guidelines inconsistently incorporated patient values and preferences and cost, nor did they consistently describe the method for assessing the quality and certainty of evidence. Regarding the AGREE II instrument, the NCCN guidelines scored highly on the domains 4 (clear, precise recommendations) and 6 (handling of conflicts of interest), but lowest on domain 2 (inclusion of all relevant stakeholders).\n\nConclusionsIn this investigation we found that NCCN CPGs demonstrate key strengths and weaknesses with respect to the reporting of key items essential to CPGs. We recommend the continued use of NCCN guidelines and adherence to the RIGHT and AGREE II items. Doing so serves to improve the evidence delivered to healthcare providers, thus potentially improving patient care.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2018

Authorship inflation and author gender in pulmonology research.

IntroductionHonorary authorship and equal gender representation are two pressing matters in scientific research. Honorary authorship is the inclusion of authors who do not meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The inclusion of honorary authors in the medical literature has led to an increase of the number of authors on studies and a decrease in single author studies in various fields.\n\nMethodsOur primary objective was to assess authorship trends in two major pulmonology journals (selected on the basis of Google Scholar rankings): Thorax and American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. We reviewed all articles published in both journals in the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 using Web of Science and extracted data such as number of authors and gender of the first and last authors.\n\nResultsThe total number of authors steadily increased from 1994 to 2014. The median number of authors grew from about four in 1994 to nearly seven in 2014, which is approximately a 75% increase. When we compiled all the data, we found the percentage of female authors from both journals had increased from 17% to 29.9% during the study period.\n\nDiscussionWe found an increase in the average number of authors on pulmonology publications between 1994 and 2014 as well as an increase in the number of females with a lead or main author position. This may be due to a variety of factors, such as increased team science. However, our data in conjunction with data from other areas of medicine, indicate that honorary authorship may be contributing to the trends we identified.

scientific communication and education↗