Comparison of different guidelines for oral cancer

Hugo Fontan Köhler, Hisham Mehanna, Jatin P. Shah, Alvaro Sanabria, Johannes Fagan, Moni A. Kuriakose, C. Rene Leemans, Brian O’Sullivan, Suren Krishnan, Luiz P. Kowalski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Guidelines should provide accessible and reliable information for decision-making. Also, they should be translatable to multiple settings, allowing their use in diverse situations. Methods: We searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, SCIELO, and SCOPUS for guidelines on oral squamous cell carcinoma. They were evaluated using the AGREE II protocol. Results: We identified 16 guidelines that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean score and range for each AGREE II domain were: “scope and purpose” 74.1% (6–100.0%); “stakeholder” 78.6% (0–100.0%); “rigor of development” 71.4% (0–100.0%); “clarity of presentation” 71.4% (6–100.0%); “applicability” 50.0% (0–85.7%); “editorial independence” 57.1% (14.3–85.7%) and “overall assessment” 57.1% (14.3–100.0%). Conclusion: Guidelines for oral cancer present variable quality. Among those available, only four surpassed the 70% AGREE II score threshold.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Publication statusPublished - 15 Oct 2020


  • Chemotherapy
  • Guideline
  • Mouth neoplasms
  • Neoplasm staging
  • Oral cancer
  • Radiotherapy
  • Surgery
  • Therapeutics

Cite this