In response to the public health emergency and other urgent needs, World Health Organization (WHO) developed the concept and methodology of rapid advice guidelines (RAGs) in 2006. Compared with the standard guideline, striving to minimize the risk of bias, the RAG shortens the time to 1-3 months from more than 2 years. This study introduces the background, definition, application condition and performing methods of RAGs, and uses an example to clarify it, thus to provide a reference for the guideline development of public health emergency and other urgent need in China.
ObjectiveTo get known of the application of Preferred Items of Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI, to collect relevant literature about the application of PRISMA during 2009-2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and then bibliometric analysis was performed using Excel software. ResultsWe finally included 175 papers, including 26 conference abstracts and 149 full texts. The results of bibliometric analysis of full texts showed that, they were published in 118 journals, and PRISMA official website announced that 176 journals endorsed the application of PRISMA. According to study type, there were 111 systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) for development and reporting, 20 overviews of SRs for reporting quality assessments, 7 versions of PRISMA interpretation, and 11 articles of other kinds. In 131 SRs/MAs as well as overviews, the studies about western medicine accounted for 77.8%, followed by public health (8.4%), and traditional Chinese medicine (4.6%). ConclusionThe application of PRISMA statement is still at the first phase and mainly confined to the field of western medicine, which needs more attention and understanding. Thus, it's necessary to interpret and disseminate the PRISMA statement.
With the perspective of evidence-based medicine, this review aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of off-label drug use of bevacizumab for eye disease, and explore the barriers to further study. And then, suggestions for the supported evidence and clinical use of off-label drug use will be provided based on this case.
The methodology of conducting systematic review of prognostic studies has received a great deal of interest in recent years. Using GRADE for systematic review of prognostic studies, five aspects should be considered:risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias. The methods of using GRADE system in systematic review of prognostic studies are similar to systematic review of interventional studies, meanwhile, there are differences. Not only the uniqueness of prognostic study but also the repeating downgrade should be taken into consideration in the GRADE process. Applying GRADE to systematic review of prognostic studies would be widely accepted along with the methodology development and quality improvement of systematic review of prognostic studies.
ObjectiveTo investigate primary healthcare workers' knowledge, attitude and behaviour, and explore the way of guidelines' popularization, application and surveillance mechanism in primary healthcare institutions. MethodsHealthcare workers in seven township hospitals in Gaolan county, Gansu province were given a questionnaire to test their knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding Clinical practice guidelines. ResultsAmong the 143 distributed questionnaires, 143 valid were retrieved. The results showed that 80% of respondents knew the guidelines and 51% had used guidelines in treatment, 32% obtained guidelines mainly through distribution by affiliations. The most popular type of guidelines was self-developed by native departments. Respondents (37%) considered difficult availability of guidelines major barriers to popularization, 74% failed to receive training about guidelines, 88% looked forward to special organizations in charge of disseminating guidelines and conducting related training on how to apply guidelines. ConclusionPrimary healthcare workers report low awareness of, attention to and compliance with clinical practice guidelines. The greatest challenge for guidelines' popularization in township hospitals is difficult availability and it is of vital importance for primary institutions to enhance guidelines' implementation and strengthen learning and conduct training.
The approaches of rating the quality of evidence of systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests are different from systematic reviews of interventional studies. This article systematically introduces the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests by a case interpretation and analysis. In this article we present rating workflow in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests and introduce how to use the GDT website to display the rating results, and interpret the conclusion of systematic reviews based on GRADE results.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in domestic medical journals from 2012 to 2013 and compare with the quality of guidelines published before. MethodsCNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were searched to collect guidelines from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data. The AGREE Ⅱ instrument was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines. ResultsA total of 78 guidelines were identified. Among them, 37 guidelines were published in 2012, and 41 in 2013. The scores of 6 domains' scores of AGREE Ⅱ were as follows:scope and purpose (24%), stakeholder involvement (11%), rigour of development (7%), clarity of presentation (32%), applicability (7%), and editorial independence (4%). The results of subgroup analysis indicated that, the scores in 5 domains (except applicability) of the guidelines published in CSCD journals were higher than those of non CSCD journals; the scores in 4 domains (except stakeholder involvement and applicability) of the guidelines received funds were higher than those of guidelines with no funds; and the scores in 5 domains (except editorial independence) of the guidelines published in 2013 were higher than those in 2012. ConclusionThe guidelines published from 2012 to 2013 have higher quality than guidelines published before 2012, but great discrepancies exist when comparing with international guidelines of average level. Chinese guidelines developers should attach importance to international methodology to develop guidelines, and use the AGREE Ⅱ instrument to develop and report guidelines.
Depending on different designs of original studies, systematic reviews of diagnostic studies could be categorized into two kinds:one is based on diagnostic randomized controlled trials, of which the GRADE rating approach is similar to that of interventional systematic reviews; and the other is based on diagnostic accuracy tests, of which the GRADE rating approach is introduced in this article. This article explains the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests mainly from the angle of theoretical analysis, including rationales, methods, and challenges.
Currently there is no tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in the design, conduct or analysis of systematic reviews. ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), which was developed lately, aims mainly to assess the risk of bias in the conduct and result interpretation of systematic reviews relating to interventions, etiology, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the relevance of the systematic review questions and the practice questions that their users want to address. This paper aims to introduce the ROBIS tool to Chinese systematic review developers, guideline developers and other researchers to promote the comprehension of it and its application, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews in China.
ObjectiveTo interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application. MethodsWe explained each item of ROBIS tool, used it to evaluate the risk of bias of a selected intervention review whose title was Cyclophosphamide for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome of Children: A Systematic Review, and judged the risk of bias in the review. ResultsThe selected systematic review as a whole was rated as “high risk of bias”, because there existed high risk of bias in domain 2 to 4, namely identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, synthesis and findings. The risk of bias in domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) was low. The relevance of identified studies and the review’s research question was appropriately considered and the reviewers avoided emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance. ConclusionROBIS is a new tool worthy of being recommended to evaluate risk of bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers should use ROBIS items as standards to conduct and produce high quality systematic reviews.