[Quality assessment of guidelines on upper gastrointestinal cancer screening]

Objective: To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of screening guidelines for upper gastrointestinal cancer (including esophageal cancer and gastric cancer) both at home and abroad, and provide reference for the update of upper gastrointestinal cancer screening guidelines in China. Methods: Original articles and grey literature published as of 31^th Aug 2020 were retrieved using Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database and China Guideline Clearinghouse), PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Embase, as well as those from International Agency for Research on Cancer and the International Guide Collaboration Network. The inclusion criteria were being independent guidelines/recommendation documents for upper gastrointestinal cancer screening and meeting the definition of the institute of Medicine, USA. The exclusion criteria were being guideline abstracts, interpretation and evaluation literature, duplicate publications, updated original guidelines, and clinical treatment or practice guidelines for esophageal or gastric cancer. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅱ) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) were used to compare and evaluate the quality and reporting standard of esophageal or gastric cancer screening guidelines. Results: A total of 6 esophageal cancer screening guidelines and 5 gastric cancer screening guidelines were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of eleven guidelines varied, including two guidelines recommended for "A", one for "B", five for "C" and three for "D". The guidelines had higher scores in the areas of scope and purpose, and clarity. The esophageal cancer screening guidelines had different scores in the areas of rigor and independence. The gastric cancer screening guidelines generally had low scores in the areas of participants and application. The RIGHT evaluation results showed that the quality of eleven guidelines should be improved. The six items with poor report quality were background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and conflict of interest statement and management and others. Conclusion: The quality of the included upper gastrointestinal cancer screening guidelines is general, and the standardization needs to be strengthened.