Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Hugo Fontan Köhler*, Hisham Mehanna, Jatin P. Shah, Alvaro Sanabria, Johannes Fagan, Moni A. Kuriakose, C. Rene Leemans, Brian O’Sullivan, Suren Krishnan, Luiz P. Kowalski

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


Background: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations. Methods: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol. Results: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: “scope and purpose” 74.1% (6–100.0%); “stakeholder” 78.6% (0–100.0%); “rigor of development” 71.4% (0–100.0%); “clarity of presentation” 71.4% (6–100.0%); “applicability” 50.0% (0–85.7%); “editorial independence” 57.1% (14.3–85.7%) and “overall assessment” 57.1% (14.3–100.0%). Conclusion: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Publication statusPublished - 15 Oct 2020

Cite this