RMTD-11 EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF CONDUCT AND REPORTING OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES IN CNS METASTASES

Abstract INTRODUCTION Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) substantially impact clinical practice worldwide, as well as healthcare policy. However, the quality of CPGs, including the systematic reviews upon which they are based, varies widely, despite a growing body of work on high-quality CPG development that has seen increasing adoption. Neuro-oncology, has slower adoption of methodological advances in evidence synthesis and development, with limited resources for high-quality CPG development by neuro-oncology-specific societies. OBJECTIVE This methodologist-driven, multicenter study seeks to evaluate the quality of conduct and reporting of global CPGs and their evidence syntheses in neuro-oncology, especially CNS metastases. METHODS This ongoing meta-research study is identifying relevant CPGs through searches of databases and websites of major neuro-oncology societies and health technology assessment bodies. For living guidelines which are continually updated, such as the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, the most updated major version are being included. Each included CPG is being assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II), while the systematic review upon which it is based, where possible, is planned for evaluation using the AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal tool, for quality of conduct, and PRISMA 2020 checklist for quality of reporting. Prior described factors that influence CPGs, such as conflicts of interests of CPG members, are planned for investigation. This work will inform future evidence synthesis efforts in CNS metastases.