Epithelial ovarian cancer
Section 12: Development of the guideline

12.1 Introduction

SIGN is a collaborative network of clinicians, other healthcare professionals and patient organisations, funded by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. SIGN guidelines are developed by multidisciplinary groups using a standard methodology based on a systematic review of the evidence. Further details about SIGN and the guideline development methodology are contained in SIGN 50: A guideline developer’s handbook, available at www.sign.ac.uk

12.2 The guideline development group

The membership of the guideline development group was confirmed following consultation with the member organisations of SIGN. Declarations of interests were made by all members of the guideline development group. Further details are available from the SIGN Executive.

12.3 Systematic literature review

Literature searches were initially conducted in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cancerlit, and the Cochrane Library using the year range 1993-2001. The literature search was updated with new material during the course of the guideline development process. Key websites on the Internet were also used, such as the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. These searches were supplemented by the reference lists of relevant papers and group members’ own files. The Medline version of the main search strategies can be found on the SIGN website.

12.4 Consultation and peer review

12.4.1 NATIONAL OPEN MEETING

The national open meeting is the main consultative phase of SIGN guideline development, at which the guideline development group presents their draft recommendations for the first time. The national open meeting for this guideline was held in June 2002 and was attended by representatives of all key specialties relevant to the guideline. The draft guideline was also available on the SIGN website for a limited period at this stage to allow those unable to attend the meeting to contribute to the development of the guideline.

12.4.2 SPECIALIST REVIEW

SIGN is grateful to the following people for commenting on the peer review draft:

Four general practitioners were also invited to review the draft guideline but did not submit any comments.

12.5 Editorial group

As a final quality control check, the guideline is reviewed by an Editorial Group comprising the relevant specialty representatives on SIGN Council to ensure that the peer reviewers’ comments have been addressed adequately and that any risk of bias in the guideline development process as a whole has been minimised. The Editorial Group for this guideline was as follows:

[Contents][Back][Top] [Next]

Home