A methodological quality evaluation of the published guidelines and recommendations about the lung cancer screening.

Background A project to assess the existing literature and to benchmark the quality of past guidelines and recommendations on lung cancer screening projects was developed with a particular focus on the assessment of the methodology used in producing them. Methods Each guideline was assessed in the different items and domains with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and scored on a seven-point scale. Results Eight guidelines matched the inclusion criteria and were assessed. A multinational collaboration produced three out of five guidelines. The multivariable analysis shows that improved scores of stakeholders' involvement were related to internationally developed guidelines. Improved methodological quality was related to the involvement of scientific societies due to the better rigor of development and editorial independence. Countries with higher expenditure on healthcare produced significantly better guidelines. Conclusions Assessed by the AGREE II criteria, the methodological quality of previous guidelines was relatively low. Nevertheless, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines should be recommended as a model for the development of best methodological quality guidelines.