ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4148-8597
Current Organisations
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori
,
Università degli Studi di Milano
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American College of Physicians
Date: 04-08-2020
DOI: 10.7326/M20-2306
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-031767
Abstract: The adaptation of guidelines is an increasingly used methodology for the efficient development of contextualised recommendations. Nevertheless, there is no specific reporting guidance. The essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement could be useful for reporting adapted guidelines, but it does not address all the important aspects of the adaptation process. The objective of our project is to develop an extension of the RIGHT statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist). To develop the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist, we will use a multistep process that includes: (1) establishment of a Working Group (2) generation of an initial checklist based on the RIGHT statement (3) optimisation of the checklist (an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review by guideline developers and users and a final assessment of adapted guidelines) and (4) approval of the final checklist. At each step of the process, we will calculate absolute frequencies and proportions, use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions, discuss the results, draft a report and refine the checklist. We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain). We will disseminate the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist by publishing into a peer-reviewed journal, presenting to relevant stakeholders and translating into different languages. We will continuously seek feedback from stakeholders, surveil new relevant evidence and, if necessary, update the checklist.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2201
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2021
DOI: 10.1016/J.DLD.2021.01.021
Abstract: The management regarding metastatic colorectal cancer throughout Europe is not well known. To draw a European comparison of the management and prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancers. Factors associated with chemotherapy administration were identified through logistic regressions. Net survival was estimated and crude probabilities of death related to cancer and other causes using a flexible cumulative hazard model. Among the 13 227 patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 in cancer registries from 10 European countries, 3140 were metastatic. 62% of metastatic patients received chemotherapy. Compared to Spain, the related adjusted odds ratios ranged from 0.7 to 4.0 (P<0.001) according to country. The 3-year net survival by country ranged between 16% and 37%. The survival gap between countries diminished from 21% to 10% when adjusting for chemotherapy, age and sex. Geographical differences in the crude probability of death related to cancer were large for patients <70 or ≥80 years at diagnosis. Heterogeneity in the application of European guidelines partly explain these differences. General health between populations, accessibility to a reference centre, or provision of health care could also be involved. Further population-based studies are warranted to disentangle between these possible explanations.
No related grants have been discovered for Milena Sant.