Methodological aspects of the malignant hematologic Colombian consensus conference
Keywords:
practice guideline, hematology, diagnosis, neoplasmas, professional staff committe, Concenso Colombiano de Hematología OncológicaAbstract
In health sector it is not uncommon to observe different behaviors for the same clinical situation. Clinical practice styles are not homoge neous and there is a great variability in the interventions. Documents obtained from consensus constitute a group of recommendations developed in a systematic way to help the health professional and the patient to make decisions for specific circumstances. The main objective of the Colombian Consensus Conference of Malignant Hematological Diseases was to elaborate explicit recommendations about approaching several hematological entities in order to influence daily clinical practices, and leading to concept unification for our country. The task of creating consensus documents was based on the evidence, using explicit approaches and systematic methods for the study selection related to non-Hodgkin follicular lymphoma, acute myeloid leukemia, lymphoid acute leukemia, chronic lymphocitic leukemia and multiple myeloma. After the conformation of a central committee, they carried out searches in diverse international and regional databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and other); study selection was done following strict preset quality parameters. Summary texts and recommendations were presented to the Colombian Consensus Conference of Malignant Hematological Diseases. Results were evaluated by tree international experts who endorsed the information. We plan to have guide updating between September and December, 2006, and their publication in the Revista Colombiana de Cancerologia in a sequential way starting from December, 2005.
Author Biographies
Andrés Felipe Cardona, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Grupo Oncología Clínica
Bogotá D.C
Colombia
Diana Esperanza Rivera, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Grupo Políticas y Movilización Social
Colombia
Bogotá, D.C
Myriam Rodriguez, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología E.S.E.
Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Grupo Hematología y Trasplante de Medula Ósea
Bogotá, D.C.
Colombia
Juana del Socorro García, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E.
Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, E.S.E
Grupo Hematología y Trasplante de Medula Ósea
Bogotá, D.C.
Colombia
Juan Felipe Combariza, Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Departamento de Hematología
Bogotá, D.C
Colombia
Claudia Patricia Casas, Hospital de San José
Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud
Hospital de San José
Bogotá, D.C.
Colombia
References
Colombia. Departamento Administrativo Nacioal de Estadística (Dane). Manual de principios y procedimientos. Sistema de Registro Civil y Estadísticas Vitales. Bogotá; 1997.
Pabón A. La mortalidad en Colombia 1953-1991. Bogotá, D. C.: Instituto Nacional de Salud; 1993.
Jensen OM, Parkin DM, Maclennan R, Muir CS, Skeet OM. Cancer registration: principles and methods. I ARC Sci Publ N° 95. 1991.
Pardo C, Murillo RH, Piñeros M, Castro MA. Casos nuevos de cáncer en el Instituto Nacional de Can cerología, Colombia, 2002. Rev Colomb Cancerol 2003;7:4-19.
Tai P, Yu E, Cserni G, Vlastos G, Royce M, Kunkler I et al. Minimum follow-up time required for the estimation of statistical cure of cancer patients: verification using data from 42 cancer sites in the SEER database. BMC Cancer 2005; 17:48.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-5-48
Murphy MK, Black MA, Lamping DL, Mckee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assessment 1998;2:1-100.
https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2030
Lefebvre C, Lusher A, Dickersin K, Manheimer E. Literature searches. Lancet 2002;359:896.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07942-4
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663-94.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT Statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9. (available at consort-statement.org).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.276.8.637
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE. The STARD state ment for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: expla nation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7-18.
https://doi.org/10.1373/49.1.7
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality or reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I et al. for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2002-12. .
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
Brouwers MC, Johnston ME, Charette ML, Hanna SE, Jadad AR, Browmari GP. Evaluating the role of quality assessment of primary studies in systematic reviews of cancer practice guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:8.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Todos los derechos reservados.
