Review of Upper GI Cancer Quality Performance Indicators Consultation

Topics (population/patient): Oesophageal (esophageal), gastric

Topics (intervention): Diagnosis, staging, surgery, non-surgical management, treatment, palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.
Adults only
Date: 2005 to present day

Topics: Communication/information, end of life care, pain management, prevention, screening and secondary liver cancer.

• Agency for Health Care Research and Quality ( AHRQ) http://www.ahrq.gov (0 results)
• American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/ (0 results)
• ASERNIP-S http://www.surgeons.org (0 results)
• Australian Government National Health and Research Council ( NHMRC) https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications (0 results)
• Canadian Medical Association Infobase http://www.cma.ca/index.php/ci_id/54316/la_id/1.htm (6 results)
• Centre for Clinical Effectiveness (Australia)
• e-Guidelines.co.uk http://www.eguidelines.co.uk/ (0 results)
• Guidelines International Network: http://www.g-i-n.net/ (3 results)
• Healthcare Improvement Scotland http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/home.aspx (0 results)
• Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/ (0 results)
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence ( NICE) http://www.nice.org.uk/ (13 results)
• National Quality Measures Clearinghouse http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov (2 results)
• NHS Evidence http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/ (28 results)
• New Zealand Guidelines Group http://www.nzgg.org.nz/ (0 results)
• Oncoline http://www.oncoline.nl/ (1 result)
• Royal College of Nursing Clinical Guidelines http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/clinicalguidelines (0 results)
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network ( SIGN) http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/home.aspx (1 result)
• The Royal Society of Medicine http://www.rsm.ac.uk/ (0 results)
• TRIP database http://www.tripdatabase.com/ 6 results)

1. esophageal neoplasms/ or intestinal neoplasms/ or stomach neoplasms/

2. ((esophag$ or oesophag$ or gullet) adj3 (cancer$ or tumo?r$ or neoplasm$ or carcinoma$)).ti,ab.

3. ((stomach or gastric) adj3 (cancer$ or neoplasm$ or tumo?r$ or carcinoma$)).ti,ab.

4. or/1-3

5. guideline.pt.

6. (guideline$ or guidance).ti,ab.

7. Clinical Audit/

8. Guideline/ or Practice Guideline/

9. Quality Indicators, Health Care/

10. or/5-9

11. 4 and 10

12. limit 11 to (english language and yr="2005 -Current")

13. limit 12 to (comment or editorial or letter)

14. 12 not 13

1. stomach cancer/

2. esophagus tumor/ or esophagus carcinoma/

3. esophagus cancer/

4. ((gastric or stomach) adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or tumo?r$ or neoplasm$)).ti,ab.

5. ((oesophag$ or esophag$ or gullet) adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or tumo?r$ or neoplasm$)).ti,ab.

6. or/1-5

7. (guideline$ or guidance).ti.

8. practice guideline/

9. or/7-8

10. 6 and 9

11. limit 10 to (english language and yr="2005 -Current")

12. limit 11 to (editorial or letter)

13. 11 not 12

An excellent and robust guideline intended for all professionals involved in diagnostics, treatment and guidance of patients with a gastric carcinoma.

No grading system in place

A very clear guideline which used high quality methods to present evidence and recommendations in a clear way to inform decision making. However, the guideline does not meet many criteria under the domain applicability.

No grading system in place

This guideline used high quality methods to develop and present the evidence and recommendations. Applicability to Scotland would be in terms of technologies, patient ethnicities and age profiles, and although there is not enough information on the applicability domain, this guideline is recommended for use.

No grading system in place

Scoring well on majority of the domains (scope, purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development and clarity of presentation) this guideline provides clear evidence and recommendations, which appear adaptable to a UK setting.
Note: updated in 2008.

No grading system in place

Clearly reports all the domains and has a transparent methodology.

No grading system in place

These guidelines clearly report all the domains and have a transparent methodology.

No grading system in place

A good quality guideline which clearly reports all the domains and has a transparent methodology.

No grading system in place

Insufficient information on the majority of the AGREE domains. Suggestion to use this guideline where there is no other dataset for histopathological reporting of cancers.

Relevant to Scotland as it is produced by the Royal College of Pathologists.

No grading system in place

This guideline scores well on all the domains and has a transparent methodology.

SIGN grades of recommendation

An updated guideline with a transparent methodology.

SAGES recommendation grading scale

A report which scores well on majority of the domains (scope, purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development and clarity of presentation) except for domain 5 (applicability and implementation issues). This is not covered in the guideline remit.

No grading system in place

A useful guideline which scores well on majority of the domains (scope, purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development and clarity of presentation). Evidence and recommendations are clear and have been updated and endorsed recently.

No grading system in place

Guideline used explicit methodology and standardised processes to develop and present evidence and summary statements, although it should be noted there is little information on domain 5 (applicability and implementation issues).

Recommended in terms of technology.
Note: Full systematic review is not yet published.

No grading system in place

Although this recent guideline does not score well on a number domains, nor are its recommendations easily identifiable, its use is suggested specifically on the role of oesophageal stents.

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system ( GRADE)