ObjectivesTo systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of the current global breast cancer screening guidelines so as to provide useful information for domestic study in the future.MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and some cancer official websites to collect breast cancer screening guidelines from inception to February, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of the guidelines by using AGREE II tool and RIGHT statement.ResultsA total of 11 guidelines were included, in which 5 guidelines (45%) were issued by the USA. The results of the quality assessment showed that: the average scores in the " scale and objective”, " participants”, " rigorism”, " clarity”, " application”, and " independence” of all guidelines were 83, 48, 60, 77, 53 and 79, respectively. 6 guidelines were evaluated as level A and 5 as level B. For the reporting quality, 3 guidelines were of high quality, including 2 in the USA and 1 in Canada.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of breast cancer screening guidelines are at present very satisfactory. The quantity of clinical guidelines shows an increasing trend. Multi-country contribution to one guideline is another trend. The evidence-based methodology has been accepted globally in the guideline development.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2017.MethodsCBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for articles published in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).ResultsOne hundred and seven clinical practice guidelines were included and a total reporting rate of 34.8%±0.1% in RIGHT. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, field on basic information had the highest reporting rate (56.8%) and fields on review and quality assurance had the lowest reporting rate (9.3%).The average reporting rate of RIGHT items of Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) articles was lower than non-CSCD [MD=−0.73, 95%CI (−0.78, −0.68)] articles. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items differed between Chinese Medical Association (CMA) journal articles and non-CMA journal articles [MD=2.30, 95%CI (2.26, 2.34)]. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items was lower in guidelines established by associations or institutes [MD=−3.78, 95%CI (−3.83, −3.73)], and was higher reported in Chinese medicine guidelines [MD=21.94, 95%CI (21.91, 21.97)].ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of mainland China in 2017 is low in general, especially in fields such as review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests and other information. To improve this phenomena, it is suggested that guideline developers report the guidelines rigorously with international standard.
Expert consensus, as an important supplement to clinical practice guidelines, supports clinical decision-making when evidence is lacking or controversial. Compared to clinical practice guidelines, the presentation of expert consensus is more diverse. Currently, there are no reporting guidelines for expert consensus in clinical and public health decision-making. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist is the most commonly used international guideline reporting standard, and is often referred to when writing expert consensus. However, the RIGHT checklist does not include a section on consensus formation methods; while the ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) checklist includes reporting requirements for consensus formation methods, but not for reporting recommendations. Therefore, this article integrates the RIGHT and ACCORD reporting checklists and proposes an integrated reporting framework (TIMER-DO) to help authors combine these two commonly used international reporting standards and complete the standardized reporting of expert consensus.
ObjectivesTo analyze the current methodological and reporting quality of both domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture, and to provide reference for the development of high quality acupuncture clinical practice guidelines.MethodsGIN, NICE, AHRQ, PubMed, EMbase, AMED, CINAHL, WanFang Data, CNKI, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture from inception to September, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality by using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT tools.ResultsA total of 23 acupuncture clinical practice guidelines were included, in which three were developed by foreign institutions, and the remaining 20 guidelines were jointly developed by WHO Western Pacific Region and China Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Three foreign and two domestic guidelines were selected for evaluation. The AGREE Ⅱ evaluation showed that the domestic guidelines have higher scores in terms of " scope and purpose”, " stakeholder involvement”, " rigor of development”, " applicability” and " clarity of presentation”, while only " editorial independence” is lower. The overall recommendation is stronger than the foreign guidelines. The RIGHT evaluation showed that for three foreign guidelines, the " reported” items accounted for 52.38%, " unreported” items accounted for 38.09%, " partly reported” items accounted for 6.66%%; however, for domestic guidelines, the " reported” accounted for 45.71%, " unreported” items accounted for 40%, and " partly reported” items accounted for 14.28% respectively. Overall, the difference is not significant (SD<10%). Due to the specificity of acupuncture interventions, the use of AGREEⅡ and RIGHT to evaluate acupuncture clinical practice guidelines still had barriers to some extend on its applicability.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are relatively low. It is urgent to further improve the methodological level and reporting standards of the guidelines, and to develop evaluation tools for the acupuncture field guidelines.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for adult AIDS. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were electronically searched and major guideline websites such as GIN, NICE, NGC and Yimaitong were also searched to collect guidelines and consensus for adult AIDS from inception to December 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the included guidelines and consensus by using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT, respectively. Results A total of 17 adult AIDS guidelines and consensus were included. The average scores of AGREE Ⅱ in various domains were 59.48% for scope and purpose, 37.17% for stakeholder involvement, 30.76% for rigor of development, 74.75% for clarity of presentation, 35.54% for applicability, and 50.49% for editorial independence. The items with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items were 1a, 1b and 1c (100.00%), followed by 3 and 4 (94.12%), 13a and 13b (88.24%), 7b and 11a (76.47%), and 5 (64.71%), and the remaining items were all reported below 60%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of the guidelines for adult AIDS expressed in AGREE Ⅱ and the average score of RIGHT were higher than those of the consensuses for adult AIDS; the average scores of guidelines and consensuses based on evidence-based medicine in five domains of AGREE Ⅱ (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation and applicability) and RIGHT were higher than those based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE Ⅱ and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines. Conclusion The methodological quality and reporting quality of the published clinical guidelines and consensuses for adult AIDS is low; in particular, there is a certain gap between the national and international guidelines and consensuses. It is suggested that future guideline developers should refer to international standards, such as AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT, formulate high-quality guidelines and promote their application to better regulate the diagnosis and treatment of adult AIDS.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of Chinese guidelines of newborns so as to provide references for the formulation of relevant guidelines for newborns in the future.MethodsCBM, VIP, WanFang Data, CNKI and Medlive databases were systematically searched to collect clinical practice guidelines in neonatal field in China from January 1st, 2000 to June 28th, 2020. Four researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, used AGREEⅡ to evaluate the methodological quality of the guidelines, used RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of the guidelines, and analyzed the score and reporting rate of items in each field.ResultsA total of 35 guidelines were included, and the quantity of publications increased annually. The AGREEⅡ score showed that guidelines published after 2017 were rated higher in all areas than that prior to 2017, with clarity scoring highest (82.9%) and editorial independence scoring lowest (15.4%). The RIGHT score showed that guidelines published after 2017 had higher reporting rates in most areas than that prior to 2017. The highest proportion of reported areas was basic information (75.6% vs. 65.0%). Areas with the lowest reporting ratios in the guidelines prior to 2017 were review and quality assurance (0%), while after 2017 were other areas (4.4%).ConclusionsNeonatal guidelines in China have developed rapidly and the quality of the guideline still requires improvement.
Objective The purpose of the extension of the RIGHT statement for introductions and interpretations of clinical practice guidelines (RIGHT for INT) was to promote the development of comprehensive and clear article those introduced and interpreted clinical practice guidelines. MethodsThe RIGHT for INT checklist was developed following methods recommended by the EQUATOR Network. The development process included three stages. In the first stage, a multidisciplinary team of experts was recruited by email and WeChat and further divided into three groups (a steering group, a consensus group, and a secretariat group); in the second stage, the initial items were collected by literature review and brainstorming; and in the third stage, the final items were formed through a Delphi survey and expert consultation. ResultsA total of 40 initial items were collected through literature review and brainstorming. A final checklist of 27 items was formed after the Delphi survey and expert consultation. ConclusionThe RIGHT for INT checklist provides guidance for guideline interpreters on how to introduce and interpret clinical practice guidelines in a scientific and comprehensive manner.