With interest, we read the paper by Graviilidis et al. (1), because two of us (JK and JJ) participated in the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP)-guideline. We were surprised about the results of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II, Appraisals of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colorectale (SICCR, which is Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery) guidelines. In a paper (2), we wrote on the quality of guidelines on haemorrhoidal disease and we rated the ASCRS guideline considerably lower than the authors of this paper. In the ASCRS guideline, we could not find the procedure with which the selected papers were evaluated (on possible bias, etc.) like it was done in the ESCP-guideline. We could not find any additional appendices, in which the selection, data extraction, and (statistical) evaluation of the papers were described. The same applies to the Italian (SICCR) guideline.
We were not the only ones to rate the ASCRS guideline lower than the authors did: Brown et al. (3) also rated the ASCRS guideline lower. The Italian (SICCR) guideline, that was rated quite high by Graviilidis et al. was rated low by Brown et al. So, we wonder how the authors come to their rating, that is quite different from Brown et al. and ours. It would be helpful to see their rating for each individual item, rather than only summary scores for each domain. We would be happy to make ours available.
Supplementary
The article’s supplementary files as
Acknowledgments
Funding: None.
Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Footnotes
Provenance and Peer Review: This article was a standard submission to the journal. The article did not undergo external peer review.
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-23-1081/coif). JJ was involved in the ESCP guideline on haemorrhoidal disease. JK is from Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd. and participated in the working group that wrote the ESCP guideline on haemorrhoidal disease. SP has no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
- 1.Gavriilidis P, Askari A, Gavriilidis E, et al. Evaluation of the current guidelines for the management of haemorrhoidal disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument. Ann Transl Med 2023;11:265. 10.21037/atm-22-4255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Petersen S, Holch P, Jongen J. Leitlinien zur Behandlungdes Hämorrhoidalleidens. Coloproctology 2019:42:6-13. 10.1007/s00053-019-00418-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Brown S, Girling C, Thapa Magar H, et al. Guidelines, guidelines and more guidelines for haemorrhoid treatment: A review to sort the wheat from the chaff. Colorectal Dis 2022;24:764-72. 10.1111/codi.16078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
The article’s supplementary files as