Evidence-Based Dermatology: Review |

Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Adaptation in the Evidence-Based Guideline “Prevention of Skin Cancer”

Sonia Petrarca, MPH; Markus Follmann, MD, MPH, MSc; Eckhard W. Breitbart, MD; Sandra Nolte, PhD
JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(4):466-471. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.3306.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance During guideline development, it is essential to systematically review existing guidelines that may be suitable for adaptation; however, such review is laborious and may not always uncover useful guidelines.

Objective To identify existing clinical practice guidelines and assess their methodologic quality and suitability for adaptation in the German evidence-based guideline “Prevention of Skin Cancer.”

Evidence Acquisition A systematic literature search was performed across a range of databases and homepages of guideline development institutions. The AGREE Instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) was used to assess the methodologic quality of selected guidelines.

Results A total of 480 citations were identified and screened. Of these, 12 guidelines were deemed suitable for potential adaptation. After comprehensive quality assessment, only 2 melanoma guidelines, one from Australia/New Zealand and the other from Scotland, were identified as being of high methodologic quality according to predefined selection criteria. Subsequent synopsis, however, revealed that neither of these guidelines was sufficiently comprehensive for full adaptation.

Conclusions and Relevance It is surprising that most existing skin cancer guidelines that contain aspects on prevention are not appropriate for adaptation, with most lacking methodologic quality, particularly rigor applied during the development process. Of the 2 guidelines that met the predefined quality criteria, only a few aspects—limited to malignant melanoma—were adaptable. We conclude that, despite the labor-intensive search for existing guidelines, a de novo development, including systematic literature review, is indispensible for the development of the German evidence-based guideline Prevention of Skin Cancer.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Search terms used for systematic review of existing clinical practice guidelines on skin cancer prevention across a range of databases. G-I-N indicates Guidelines International Network; NICE, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Results of the guideline quality appraisal focusing on the third domain (Rigor of Development) of AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation).18 See cited references for all other abbreviation expansions.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Results of the systematic review of existing clinical practice guidelines on skin cancer prevention. AGREE indicates Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation.18




Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles