Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2011
[The diagnosis of prostate cancer from the clinical guidelines].
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Herranz Amo Felipe, Hernández Fernández Carlos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare methodology and recommendations for the diagnosis of prostate cancer between the different clinical Guidelines currently existent.
METHODS: We searched for clinical practice Guidelines published in the period 2007-2009 in the web pages of the urological scientific associations, National Guideline clearinghouse, CMA infobase, and Trip database, as well as Pub Med. We found 4 clinical practice guidelines matching the search criteria.
RESULTS: All guidelines have been developed by a multidisciplinary team, performing a previous systematic review. All of them except the AUA translate the scientific evidence in recommendations, although each of them uses a different classification. Only one of them has been evaluated using the AGREE method. There are differences in the recommendation and use of diagnostic tests (PSA, digital rectal examination and prostatic biopsy) due to the fact that as a general rule they are based on low level scientific evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in all clinical practice guidelines are based on low levels of evidence, except in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and anesthesia to perform a biopsy.
METHODS: We searched for clinical practice Guidelines published in the period 2007-2009 in the web pages of the urological scientific associations, National Guideline clearinghouse, CMA infobase, and Trip database, as well as Pub Med. We found 4 clinical practice guidelines matching the search criteria.
RESULTS: All guidelines have been developed by a multidisciplinary team, performing a previous systematic review. All of them except the AUA translate the scientific evidence in recommendations, although each of them uses a different classification. Only one of them has been evaluated using the AGREE method. There are differences in the recommendation and use of diagnostic tests (PSA, digital rectal examination and prostatic biopsy) due to the fact that as a general rule they are based on low level scientific evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in all clinical practice guidelines are based on low levels of evidence, except in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and anesthesia to perform a biopsy.