Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument
Purpose To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals. Methods Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Supportive care in cancer 2021-06, Vol.29 (6), p.2885-2893 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2893 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 2885 |
| container_title | Supportive care in cancer |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Zhou, Hong-Juan Deng, Li-Jin Wang, Tao Chen, Jin-Xiu Jiang, Su-Zhen Yang, Liu Liu, Fang Weng, Mei-Hua Hu, Jing-Wen Tan, Jing-Yu |
| description | Purpose
To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals.
Methods
Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool.
Results
Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was “clarity of presentation” (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was “applicability” (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as “strongly recommended,” three were assessed as “recommended with modifications,” and two were deemed as “not recommended.”
Conclusion
Considering that the two “strongly recommended” guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients.
Trial registration
PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494303459</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A659452524</galeid><sourcerecordid>A659452524</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e5465b96a335b4a3fbcbe6a99e266bda1c7c18040167b9da517b818080d233a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAltiwSfFvMmE3Gg1lpEpICNaW49wMLomT-jqL6cvwqjidQgVCyAtLJ98517k6hLzi7JIzVr1DxrRgBRO8YCWrVXH3hKy4krKopKyfklXWeKGk1mfkHPGGMV5VWjwnZ1KWcl2pakV-bHsfvLM9naJ1yTugh9m3kFVA2o2Rpm9Aw5yiT34MmYsev1N0ESD4cKA2tNQiAuIAIdGxo84GB5FONvms4HtqKR4xwZAFR29n2_t0pHbKAz3mwBmXnGXM5urzbkf3e-oDpjgvgS_Is872CC8f7gvy9cPuy_Zjcf3par_dXBdOKZEK0KrUTV1aKXWjrOwa10Bp6xpEWTat5a5yfM0U42XV1K3VvGrWWVizVkhplbwgb0-5UxxvZ8BkBo8O-t4GGGc0QtVKMql0ndE3f6E34xzzajKleanrvH3-SB1sD8aHbkx5wUuo2WRGaaHFMvbyH1Q-LQzejQE6n_U_DOJkcHFEjNCZKfrBxqPhzCytMKdWmNwKc98Kc5dNrx9ePDcDtL8tv2qQAXkCMH8KB4iPv_Sf2J9aFcOp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2516597331</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Zhou, Hong-Juan ; Deng, Li-Jin ; Wang, Tao ; Chen, Jin-Xiu ; Jiang, Su-Zhen ; Yang, Liu ; Liu, Fang ; Weng, Mei-Hua ; Hu, Jing-Wen ; Tan, Jing-Yu</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Hong-Juan ; Deng, Li-Jin ; Wang, Tao ; Chen, Jin-Xiu ; Jiang, Su-Zhen ; Yang, Liu ; Liu, Fang ; Weng, Mei-Hua ; Hu, Jing-Wen ; Tan, Jing-Yu</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals.
Methods
Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool.
Results
Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was “clarity of presentation” (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was “applicability” (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as “strongly recommended,” three were assessed as “recommended with modifications,” and two were deemed as “not recommended.”
Conclusion
Considering that the two “strongly recommended” guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients.
Trial registration
PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0941-4355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33638747</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Cancer patients ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical practice guidelines ; Diagnosis ; Evidence-based medicine ; Health care reform ; Health risk assessment ; Humans ; Liquors ; Malnutrition ; Mass Screening ; Medical care ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neoplasms - diet therapy ; Nursing ; Nursing Research ; Nutrition ; Nutrition Assessment ; Oncology ; Oncology, Experimental ; Pain Medicine ; Product/Service Evaluations ; Quality management ; Rehabilitation Medicine ; Review Article</subject><ispartof>Supportive care in cancer, 2021-06, Vol.29 (6), p.2885-2893</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e5465b96a335b4a3fbcbe6a99e266bda1c7c18040167b9da517b818080d233a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e5465b96a335b4a3fbcbe6a99e266bda1c7c18040167b9da517b818080d233a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8573-2072</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33638747$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Hong-Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Li-Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jin-Xiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Su-Zhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weng, Mei-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jing-Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Jing-Yu</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument</title><title>Supportive care in cancer</title><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><description>Purpose
To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals.
Methods
Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool.
Results
Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was “clarity of presentation” (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was “applicability” (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as “strongly recommended,” three were assessed as “recommended with modifications,” and two were deemed as “not recommended.”
Conclusion
Considering that the two “strongly recommended” guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients.
Trial registration
PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020)</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer patients</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical practice guidelines</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Health care reform</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liquors</subject><subject>Malnutrition</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical care</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diet therapy</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Research</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Nutrition Assessment</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Oncology, Experimental</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Product/Service Evaluations</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAltiwSfFvMmE3Gg1lpEpICNaW49wMLomT-jqL6cvwqjidQgVCyAtLJ98517k6hLzi7JIzVr1DxrRgBRO8YCWrVXH3hKy4krKopKyfklXWeKGk1mfkHPGGMV5VWjwnZ1KWcl2pakV-bHsfvLM9naJ1yTugh9m3kFVA2o2Rpm9Aw5yiT34MmYsev1N0ESD4cKA2tNQiAuIAIdGxo84GB5FONvms4HtqKR4xwZAFR29n2_t0pHbKAz3mwBmXnGXM5urzbkf3e-oDpjgvgS_Is872CC8f7gvy9cPuy_Zjcf3par_dXBdOKZEK0KrUTV1aKXWjrOwa10Bp6xpEWTat5a5yfM0U42XV1K3VvGrWWVizVkhplbwgb0-5UxxvZ8BkBo8O-t4GGGc0QtVKMql0ndE3f6E34xzzajKleanrvH3-SB1sD8aHbkx5wUuo2WRGaaHFMvbyH1Q-LQzejQE6n_U_DOJkcHFEjNCZKfrBxqPhzCytMKdWmNwKc98Kc5dNrx9ePDcDtL8tv2qQAXkCMH8KB4iPv_Sf2J9aFcOp</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Zhou, Hong-Juan</creator><creator>Deng, Li-Jin</creator><creator>Wang, Tao</creator><creator>Chen, Jin-Xiu</creator><creator>Jiang, Su-Zhen</creator><creator>Yang, Liu</creator><creator>Liu, Fang</creator><creator>Weng, Mei-Hua</creator><creator>Hu, Jing-Wen</creator><creator>Tan, Jing-Yu</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-2072</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument</title><author>Zhou, Hong-Juan ; Deng, Li-Jin ; Wang, Tao ; Chen, Jin-Xiu ; Jiang, Su-Zhen ; Yang, Liu ; Liu, Fang ; Weng, Mei-Hua ; Hu, Jing-Wen ; Tan, Jing-Yu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e5465b96a335b4a3fbcbe6a99e266bda1c7c18040167b9da517b818080d233a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer patients</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical practice guidelines</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Health care reform</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liquors</topic><topic>Malnutrition</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical care</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diet therapy</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Research</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Nutrition Assessment</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Oncology, Experimental</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Product/Service Evaluations</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Hong-Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Li-Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jin-Xiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Su-Zhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weng, Mei-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jing-Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Jing-Yu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhou, Hong-Juan</au><au>Deng, Li-Jin</au><au>Wang, Tao</au><au>Chen, Jin-Xiu</au><au>Jiang, Su-Zhen</au><au>Yang, Liu</au><au>Liu, Fang</au><au>Weng, Mei-Hua</au><au>Hu, Jing-Wen</au><au>Tan, Jing-Yu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument</atitle><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle><stitle>Support Care Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2885</spage><epage>2893</epage><pages>2885-2893</pages><issn>0941-4355</issn><eissn>1433-7339</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals.
Methods
Guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool.
Results
Seven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was “clarity of presentation” (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was “applicability” (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as “strongly recommended,” three were assessed as “recommended with modifications,” and two were deemed as “not recommended.”
Conclusion
Considering that the two “strongly recommended” guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients.
Trial registration
PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020)</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33638747</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-2072</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0941-4355 |
| ispartof | Supportive care in cancer, 2021-06, Vol.29 (6), p.2885-2893 |
| issn | 0941-4355 1433-7339 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494303459 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Cancer Cancer patients Clinical medicine Clinical practice guidelines Diagnosis Evidence-based medicine Health care reform Health risk assessment Humans Liquors Malnutrition Mass Screening Medical care Medical screening Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neoplasms - diet therapy Nursing Nursing Research Nutrition Nutrition Assessment Oncology Oncology, Experimental Pain Medicine Product/Service Evaluations Quality management Rehabilitation Medicine Review Article |
| title | Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T07%3A02%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20practice%20guidelines%20for%20the%20nutritional%20risk%20screening%20and%20assessment%20of%20cancer%20patients:%20a%20systematic%20quality%20appraisal%20using%20the%20AGREE%20II%20instrument&rft.jtitle=Supportive%20care%20in%20cancer&rft.au=Zhou,%20Hong-Juan&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2885&rft.epage=2893&rft.pages=2885-2893&rft.issn=0941-4355&rft.eissn=1433-7339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA659452524%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2516597331&rft_id=info:pmid/33638747&rft_galeid=A659452524&rfr_iscdi=true |