Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review.

Introduction: Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values.

Objective: To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

Methods: Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021.

Decision Aids for Decision Making about Locally Advance Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is a subset of breast cancer with locoregional progression without distant metastasis. The multimodality treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal and targeted therapy if required) could significantly improve results in this specific group of patients. The complex and multiple options of treatment with similar mortality rates but different outcomes depending on the patient's desires, preferences and social environment require aid to facilitate the individual patient's decisions (e.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements.

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting.

Methods: A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review.

Objectives: We evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.

Methods: Following protocol registration (Prospero n: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.

Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review.

Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain.

Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.

Methods: Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020.

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey.

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment.

Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale.

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review.

Background: High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.

Methods: Following protocol registration (Prospero n: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020.

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

Background: It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).

Objective: To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.

Search Strategy: Following protocol registration (Prospero no.

To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review.

Purpose Of Review: Investigation of noncyclic mastalgia in women without signs or risk factors for cancer is controversial. An initial imaging strategy can diagnose breast cancer early, potentially leading to better treatment and survival. However, cancer diagnosis is very uncommon in these cases, and this approach can be harmful, as false positives or suspicion results will lead to unneeded interventions and follow-up.