Objective To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines. Methods Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The irrelevant literatures (e.g. systematic review of a specific disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then the further verification was done after the full-texts had been read. The contents about how to report a systematic review or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classified by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.). Results Primary search ended up with 285 literatures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, five about quality assessment, six about the influence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines. Conclusion The report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are beneficial to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specific field is needs to be formulate.
ObjectiveTo acquaint the development process and item composition of the appraisal tools and reporting standards of clinical pathways worldwide, in order to improve the development and evaluation of clinical pathways. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data for articles about the appraisal tools and reporting standards of clinical pathways from inception to Jan, 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and compared the difference in development process and item composition among included appraisal tools and reporting standards of clinical pathways. ResultsA total of 7 appraisal tools and reporting standards were included. Among them, 3 were from UK, 1 from China, 1 from Australia, 1 from Belgium, and 1 from Saudi Arabia. All included appraisal tools contained 4 to 15 domains and 14 to 99 items. Based on the comparison of different domains and items of included appraisal tools, "Clinical Pathway Management Guidelines" published by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China and the research of Vannhaecht, we identified 17 key elements of clinical pathway as follows:organizational commitment, pathway project management, format of doc, content of pathway, multidisciplinary involvement, variance management, EBM/guidelines, maintenance of pathway, accountability, patient involvement, development of pathway, additional support systems & documents, operational arrangement, implementation, outcome management, safety and organization of the care process. ConclusionCurrently, the appraisal tools and reporting standards of clinical pathways are rudimentary, so we desperately needs to establish mature appraisal tool and reporting standard of clinical pathways to guide the development and implementation of clinical pathway, so as to improve their application effects in clinical practice and medical quality.
The Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 is a revision of the STARD 2003 on the checklist and flow chart, on the basis of the new evidences of potential bias and applicability, to better guide the application of diagnostic test in clinical practices. Currently, the interpretation and application in China is still based on STARD 2003. This review will describe the application status of the original version and introduce the updated standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is one of the branches of meta-analysis, which has provided important evidence for clinical research. Since introducing into China, it has gained great attention. In order to improve the reporting quality of DRMA, Dr. Chang Xu et al. developed the reporting guideline for DAMA——G-Dose Checklist. It was published in Chinese Jouranl of Evidence-based Medicine in 2016. This paper interprets the checklists so as to promote the understanding and use of it.
The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) is a latest guide tool made by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group. It can enhance the transparency and completeness of Core Outcome Set (COS) report. This paper introduces the generation process, report items and application of COS-STAR to provide reference for domestic similar researches.
The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy for studies in journal or conference abstracts (STARD for Abstracts) was developed for guiding the reporting of abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies, which was published in BMJ in August 2017. The study mainly introduced and interpreted the items of STARD for Abstracts, in order to help domestic researchers to perform and report the abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies by STARD for Abstracts.