Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on screening and diagnosis of oral cancer and to describe the characteristics of their recommendations.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CPG' websites, and dentistry and oncology scientific societies to identify CPGs that were related to screening and diagnosis of oral cancer. The quality of selected CPGs was independently assessed by four appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The inter-appraiser agreement was assessed. We performed a descriptive analysis of the recommendations included in the selected CPGs.ResultsEight CPGs were selected. The overall agreement among reviewers was considered very good (ICC: 0.823; 95% CI: 0.777-0.861). The median scores of the six AGREE II domains were as follows: scope and purpose 97.9% (IQR: 96.2-100.0%); stakeholder involvement 86.1% (IQR: 69.8-93.1%); rigor of development 75.3% (IQR: 64.2-94.3%); clarity of presentation 91.7% (IQR: 82.6-94.4%); applicability 53.1% (IQR: 19.3-74.2%); and editorial independence 83.3% (IQR: 67.2-93.8%). Four CPGs were assessed as recommended, four recommended with modifications, and none not recommended. Twenty-three recommendations were provided, mostly with a low or very low level of evidence.ConclusionThe methodological quality of CPGs on screening and diagnosis of oral cancer is moderate. The applicability domain scored the lowest. Most recommendations were based on a low o very low level of evidence.Clinical relevanceGreater efforts are needed to provide healthcare based on high-quality evidence-based CPGs in this field.