Communication and ethical considerations for fertility preservation for patients with
      childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: recommendations from the PanCareLIFE
      Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization
      Group

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p class="first" id="d3843197e711">Patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who will be treated with gonadotoxic therapies are at increased risk for infertility. Many patients and their families desire biological children but effective communication about treatment-related infertility risk and procedures for fertility preservation does not always happen. The PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group reviewed the literature and developed a clinical practice guideline that provides recommendations for ongoing communication methods for fertility preservation for patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger and their families. Moreover, the guideline panel formulated considerations of the ethical implications that are associated with these procedures. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the evidence and recommendations. In this clinical practice guideline, existing evidence and international expertise are combined to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate ongoing communication between health-care providers and patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who might be at high risk for fertility impairment and their families. </p>

Related collections

Most cited references 127

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A. Akl … (2011)

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 2220 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

David Atkins, Dana Best, Peter A Briss … (2004)

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

0 comments Cited 1200 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

Simon Lewin, Andrew Booth, Claire Glenton … (2018)

The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.