Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined. Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%). Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

Aims and Objectives The aim of this study was to assess methodological quality of all currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the AGREE Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX) instruments. Background Globally, incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a significant health challenge. IAD is a complex healthcare problem that reduces quality of life of patients, increases healthcare costs and prolongs hospital stays. Several guidelines and consensus statements are available for IAD. However, the quality of these guidelines and consensus statements remains unclear. Design A systematic review of guidelines and consensus statements. Methods Our study was undertaken using PRISMA guidelines. We searched seven electronic databases. Guidelines and consensus statements had to be published in English, Chinese or German languages. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of guidelines and consensus statements using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Mean with standard deviation (SD) and median with interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for descriptive analyses. We generated bubble plots to describe the assessment results of each domain of each guideline and consensus statement. Results We included ten guidelines and consensus statements. The NICE guidelines, obtained the highest scores, fulfilled 86.11%-98.61% of criteria in AGREE II and 76.67%-91.11% for AGREE-REX. In the domains 'Stakeholder Involvement' (4.39 +/- 1.64), 'Rigor of Development' (3.38 +/- 1.86), 'Applicability' (3.62 +/- 1.64), 'Editorial Independence' (3.91 +/- 2.56) and 'Values and Preferences' (2.98 +/- 1.41), the remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed deficiencies. Conclusions Altogether, this study demonstrated that the currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD have room for methodological improvement. NICE guidelines on faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence have better quality. Remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed substantial methodological weaknesses, especially the domains of 'Stakeholder Involvement', 'Rigor of Development', 'Applicability', 'Editorial independence' and 'Values and Preferences'. This study was registered on INPLASY. (Registration number: INPLASY202190078). Relevance to Clinical Practice The currently available guidelines and consensus statements on IAD have room for methodological improvement.