Global coverage and consistency of guideline recommendations for cancer cachexia on the Web in 2011 and 2018

Introduction: Cancer cachexia is a common associate of cancer and has a negative impact on both patients' quality of life and overall survival. Nonetheless its management remains suboptimal in clinical practice. Provision of medical recommendations in websites is of extreme importance for medical decision making and translating evidence into clinical practice. Aim of the study: To scrutinize the magnitude, consistency and changes over time of cancer-cachexia recommendations for physicians on the Web among oncology related societies. Intercontinental, continental, national and socioeconomic variations were further analyzed. Material and methods: Web identification of oncology related societies and prospective analyses of relative Web guideline recommendations for physicians on cancer-cachexia at different time-points. Results: In June 2011, we scrutinized 144,000 Web pages. We identified 275 societies, of which 270 were eligible for analyses: 67 were international (African, American, Asian, European, Oceania and Intercontinental), 109 belonged to the top 10 countries with the highest development index and 94 pertained to 10 countries with a long lasting tradition in medical oncology. Conclusions: The magnitude of cancer cachexia recommendations for physicians on the Web at a global level was scant both for coverage and consistency, and at any time-point considered: 3.7% (10/270) in 2011 and 8.1% (22/270) in 2018. The proportion of societies giving evidence-based and updated recommendations for cancer cachexia for physicians was only 1.1% (3/270) in 2011 and 2.96% (8/270) in 2018. Continent, national highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence Web guideline provision

Cancer pain ... who cares? : International and national patterns of evidence-based global guide-lines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018)

Purpose: Although pain is a common event during treatment of cancer, its assessment and management remains suboptimal in everyday clinical practice at global level. Methods: Considering both the important role of Internet in daily life and that clinical guidelines are important for translating evidence in clinical practice, we performed a prospective study to scrutinize the magnitude of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guideline recommendation for physicians on the web. Changes over-time at a global level were scrutinized at two time points: 2011 for baseline and 2018 at first follow-up. Both anesthesiology and oncology societies were analyzed. Results: In 2011 we scrutinized 181,00 WebPages and 370 eligible societies were identified; 364 of these were eligible for analyses both in 2011 and 2018. The magnitude of cancer pain updated and evidence-based guideline recommendations on the web for health care providers was extremely low at global level and at any time point considered 1.1% (4/364) in 2011 and 4.7% (17364) in 2018. Continental and intercontinental patterns, National's highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence cancer pain web-guideline provision. In 2018, pain & supportive care societies provided the highest rate of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guidelines for clinicians. Only 3/25 medical oncology societies and 1/34 radiation oncology societies, provided own or e-link (to other societies) evidence-based guidelines in their websites. Conclusions: Major medical oncology and radiation oncology societies - at global level - fail to produce updated cancer pain recommendations for their physicians, with most of these providing no or inconsistent or outdated guidelines

Cancer pain ... who cares? : International and national patterns of evidence-based global guide-lines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018)

Purpose: Although pain is a common event during treatment of cancer, its assessment and management remains suboptimal in everyday clinical practice at global level. Methods: Considering both the important role of Internet in daily life and that clinical guidelines are important for translating evidence in clinical practice, we performed a prospective study to scrutinize the magnitude of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guideline recommendation for physicians on the web. Changes over-time at a global level were scrutinized at two time points: 2011 for baseline and 2018 at first follow-up. Both anesthesiology and oncology societies were analyzed. Results: In 2011 we scrutinized 181,00 WebPages and 370 eligible societies were identified; 364 of these were eligible for analyses both in 2011 and 2018. The magnitude of cancer pain updated and evidence-based guideline recommendations on the web for health care providers was extremely low at global level and at any time point considered 1.1% (4/364) in 2011 and 4.7% (17364) in 2018. Continental and intercontinental patterns, National's highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence cancer pain web-guideline provision. In 2018, pain & supportive care societies provided the highest rate of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guidelines for clinicians. Only 3/25 medical oncology societies and 1/34 radiation oncology societies, provided own or e-link (to other societies) evidence-based guidelines in their websites. Conclusions: Major medical oncology and radiation oncology societies - at global level - fail to produce updated cancer pain recommendations for their physicians, with most of these providing no or inconsistent or outdated guidelines