With the popularization of digestive endoscopy in children, colonoscopy has been widely used. As the basis of digestive endoscopy, bowel preparation directly affects the diagnosis and treatment results of colonoscopy. Compared with adults, the functioning of important organs of children is immature, and their ability of cognition, communication and tolerance are weak. Their structure of the digestive tract is also significantly different in different ages. However, there have been no existing evidence-based guidelines on bowel preparation for digestive endoscopy of Chinese children. Therefore, it is important to develop evidence-based guidelines for bowel preparation combined with the clinical practice in China. In order to provide guidance and decision-making basis for Chinese pediatricians, we collaborated with multidisciplinary experts, based on existing evidence, adopted the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach, followed the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) to develop this guideline for bowel preparation related to the diagnosis and treatment of children's digestive endoscopy.
In February 2020, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) published the latest guideline on chronic pancreatitis, and put forward practical recommendations on the etiology, natural history, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and follow-up of chronic pancreatitis. This paper aims to provide references for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis in China by interpreting the main content of the guideline and comparing it with related guidelines or consensuses domestically and abroad.
Evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy in China (2022) is based on evidences in recent clinical trials and a system of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation of evidence quality and strength of recommendations. The main key points around why the diabetic macular edema (DME) changes the classification, what thresholds for initiating anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drug therapy; eyes with center-involved DME (CI-DME) and good vision for clinical significant macular edema still treated by focal laser even with good vision, the clinical pathway for CI-DME changes first-line treatment from laser to anti-VEGF, loading dose of anti-VEGF for CI-DME in non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (DR) from 3 injections up to 4-5 injections is recommended; severe non-proliferative DR and proliferative DR with vision impairment but without hemorrhages and retinal traction could be considered first treatment of anti-VEGF comparing to initiate pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) (weakly recommended), PRP is still gold-standard for progressive non-perfusion area of retina. With the rapid development of DR evaluation devices such as optical coherence tomography, wide-angle optical coherence tomography angiography and wide-angle fluorescein fundus angiography, imaging biomarkers have been provided for the degree of DR lesion, treatment response and prognosis. It is believed that the clinical practice will be promoted a new height by the 2022 edition of Chinese DR guideline.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines of cervical cancer in China published from 2014 to 2018.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP, Medlive.cn, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EMbase were searched for cervical cancer clinical practice guidelines published in China from January 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2018. Four reviewers searched and selected the literature independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of the included guidelines by using AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 9 guidelines were included. The average score for each area was: scope and purpose 75.47%, stakeholders’ involvement 35.09%, the rigor of development 43.70%, clarity of presentation 87.74%, applicability 80.76%, and editorial independence 0%.ConclusionsThe quality of cervical cancer clinical practice guidelines in China requires further improvement.
The number of clinical practice guidelines for traditional Chinese patent medicine has been increasing recently. However, the quality of guidelines was still low compared to international guidelines. Considering the characteristics of traditional Chinese patent medicine, we suggested the following items should be taken into account when developing traditional Chinese patent medicine guidelines: ensuring the standardized guidelines of traditional Chinese patent medicine research problem is scientific based on reliable evidence; identifying the common questions according to these research problems; understanding the strength of evidence and how to recommend correctly; inviting some experts in other fields to take part in the development of guidelines; paying more attention on the changes of disease burden and the impact of new methods and technologies when developing the guideline; paying more attention to the non-consensus opinions and evidence supporting these opinions; insisting on quality is the priority, while speed is secondary.
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common cause of preventable blindness in the working-age population. In addition to optimizing the hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and other risk factors, regular fundus examination is essential for early diagnosis asymptomatic DR and timely treat the sight-threatening DR, so as to reduce blindness and severe visual impairment caused by DR. Clinical practice guidelines for the screening and management of DR have been implemented throughout the world, but there are reasonable differences between existing guidelines in the recommended timing of first retinal examination, screening intervals, methods for examination and criteria for referral to an ophthalmologist. It is of great clinical significance to have a detailed understanding of the current guidelines for DR screening and their clinical basis.
Based on peer-reviewed systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between January 2000 and June 2019 with regards to the management of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis (GJO), the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) established the clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of GJO. The guidelines provided practice recommendations including risk factors, non-surgical treatment, surgical treatment, prosthesis selection, and perioperative management for GJO. The recommendations were graded according to different evidence strength. This paper interprets the guidline in order to provide reference for domestic medical workers.
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.
ObjectiveTo investigate the application status of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and assess their reporting quality and summarize the existing problems, so as to promote the application of survival analysis and reporting quality. MethodsStudies that used survival analysis were collected from 1 492 studies published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology and Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment in 2013. The application status of survival analysis of included studies was analysed and their reporting quality was evaluated. ResultsA total of 242 survival analysis studies were included. Among them, the utilization rates of Kaplan-Meier method, life table method, log-rank test, Breslow test and Cox proportional hazards model were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41% and 46.28%, respectively. 112 studies did multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 396 end points and 10 different types of survival time were reported. Overall survival (OS) was reported in 233 studies (92.15%). Survival terms were defined to 158 end points (39.90%) of 103 studies (42.56%). The follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 studies (64.05%), of which 4 studies were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 studies were 100%. The main problems of survival analysis studies published in Chinese journals were as follows:None of the studies which used Cox proportional hazards model reported the proportional hazards assumption. None of the studies used the method of parametric survival analysis. 130 studies (53.72%) did not use the method of multiple factor analysis. 139 studies (57.44%) did not define the survival terms. Only 11 of 100 studies which reported loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. None of the studies reported the methods of calculating sample size. None of the studies reported the censoring proportion. ConclusionThe methods of survival analysis are used in a low rate in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and the overall reporting quality of survival analyses is poor. So the reporting guideline of survival analysis should be developed and the authors should be encouraged to cooperate with professional statisticians, in order to improve the design, analysis and reporting quality of survival analysis studies.