ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer.MethodsDatabases 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 esophageal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II and RIGHT instruments.ResultsA total of 26 esophageal cancer guidelines and consensus were included. The mean scores for each domain of AGREE II was 49.63% for scope and purpose, 25.16% for stakeholder involvement, 23.42% for rigor of development, 49.25% for clarity of presentation, 16.91% for applicability, and 21.07% for editorial independence. The item with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items was 5 (84.62%), followed by 1a (80.77%), 1c (65.38%), 13a (65.38%), and 4 (61.54%), and the remaining items were all reported below 50%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the guidelines and consensus developed based on the evidence-based medicine method had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE II and the RIGHT score than the guidelines and consensus developed based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the three domains of AGREE II (formulation rigor, clarity, editorial independence) and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on esophageal cancer is low, with the guidelines and consensus in China even lower, requiring further improvement. It is suggested that the guideline developers should refer to the standards such as AGREE II and RIGHT to develop high-quality guidelines and promote their application, so as to better guide the standardized diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer.
Objective To investigate and analyze the status of clinical guidelines of children in China, so as to regulate the development of children’s evidence-based clinical guidelines and provide recommendations for children’s clinical guidelines. Methods Names of guidelines, year and institution of publication, methodology of development and reference number were descriptively analyzed. Years of publication and diseases of guidelines were analyzed with statistical graphs. AGREE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence-based guidelines of children. Results a) Of 91 clinical guidelines of children, 62 were translations. Of 29 guidelines ourselves, nine were traditional Chinese medicine guidelines and five (17%) were evidence-based guidelines; b) Guideline on Rational Use of Antibiotics in Acute Respiratory Infections (Probation), the first guideline of children, was published in 1999. Guidelines of children was not published until 2005. Then, the number of guidelines was increasing each year and reached a peak in 2008. Of 13 guidelines in 2008, seven were traditional Chinese medicine guidelines. Guidelines on respiratory diseases were 14 ranked as the top; c) Guidelines on congenital deformity and chromosomal abnormalities, tumor, circulatory system disease, blood disease and western guideline on communicable disease were not formulated in China; and d) Average scores on six domain of five evidence-based guidelines were 84.4%, 37.5%, 74.3%, 90.0%, 22.2%, 46.6%, respectively. Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children Aged 0 to 5 with Acute Fever of Unknown Etiology was bly recommended, Guide on Management of Children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia, Evidence-Based Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children with Common Kidney Disease, Guide on Nutrition Support of Newborn, Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children with Chronic Cough were recommended. Conclusion Clinical guidelines of children in China begin late, develop slowly and are lack of update. A standard on development of guidelines is needed. The government should increase the fund of development, implementation and promotion of guidelines. Recommendations for high-quality guidelines should be included in procedure of medical quality assurance. Compliance of guidelines should be provided by organization which formulatesd the guideline, so as to promote the application of high-quality guidelines.
Severe trauma is a challenging medical problem. Uncontrolled post-traumatic hemorrhage and traumatic coagulation dysfunction are closely related to the prognosis of these patients. In May 2019, the pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma published the fifth edition of the European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma. To assist Chinese in better understanding of the latest developments, this paper translated the main treatment recommendations in the guideline and interpreted the updated content from the fourth edition.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the structure, publication type and contents of current guidelines for guideline development, so as to provide methodology references for guideline development in China. MethodsSix biomedical research literature databases, six guideline databases and 18 websites of academic institutions and health administrative departments were searched to locate guidelines for guideline development. We included the latest versions of guidelines from guideline development departments or academic institutions. We extracted information consisting of general guideline information, structure, principles, methods and procedure of guideline development. A descriptive analysis was conducted to analyze the general information, structure, principles, methods and procedure of guidelines among different guidelines for guideline development. ResultsAmong all the included 25 guidelines for guideline development published from 1998 to 2014, 50% of them were from North America. Structure of these guidelines were similar while detail levels of recommended guideline development methods and procedures were slightly different. The guideline development groups, systematic literature search, evidence assessment and recommendation formulation were vital part of guideline development. The ineffective promotion and implementation of guidelines for guideline development were common problems of current guidelines. ConclusionsProcedures recommended by current guidelines for guideline development are almost the same, but the methods and statements are different. We could develop our own guideline for guideline development based on the current relative high-quality guideline in order to provide guidance to the clinical guideline development in China.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines using evidence-based methods based on the global burden of pancreatic cancer, so as to explore its status, region distribution, characteristics of coverage themes, and difference of therapies recommended by the guidelines of various quality, and to provide references for clinical decisionmaking. MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2013), CBM, CNKI, and VIP, as well as the website of National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched for pancreatic cancer treatment guidelines. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅲ) was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines. ResultsA total of 14 relevant guidelines (including five evidence-based guidelines) were included involving seven countries of four continents (Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania) and four international academic organizations. There were only two domains, namely "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentations" which got high average scores (more than 60%) among all 14 guidelines. The mean AGREE domain scores in guidelines varied with areas, and the quality of five evidence-based guidelines was superior to that established by consensus. According to the outcomes of AGREE Ⅲ, 11 guidelines were weakly recommended, while 3 were not recommended due to poor methodological quality. The subjects of 14 guidelines covered six treatment categories, including chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, support therapy, radiotherapy, and interventional therapy. ConclusionThe overall methodological quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines is not high among different countries or regions. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. Chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and support therapy were reccommended as predominant choice by these guidelines.
Objective To investigate the awareness of rational use of drug (RUD) on medical workers in hospitals of different ranks, the establishment and execution of relevant strategies in hospitals of different ranks, and the main factors affecting RUD on medical workers, so as to provide references for the generalization of RUD. Methods A certain number of different ranks of hospitals in Chengdu and Zigong were randomly selected by the convenience sample method. Medical workers in each hospital were selected through face-to-face interviews with a self-designed questionnaire. Monte Carlo Chi-square analysis was applied on the hospital ranks and formulation of RUD guidelines, and logistic regression analysis was performed on the awareness of RUD knowledge of the respondents. Results Among 700 questionnaires distributed, 672 were retrieved (response rate 96.0%). The numbers of respondents who were familiar with the Pharmaceutical Affairs Councils (PACs) as well as the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees (PTCs) were 217 (32.29%) and 83 (12.35%), respectively. The number of respondents who understood the concept of essential medicine was 502 (74.71%). A total of 441 (61.16%) medical workers had been trained on RUD, 199 (29.61%) medical workers denied there were PTCs in their hospitals, and 60.71% of the medical workers mentioned that the use of drug was monitored and controlled with the feedback in their hospitals. The result of logistic regression analysis indicated that the professional title (P=0.038), awareness of essential medicine (Plt;0.001) and participation of RUD training (P=0.008) were the factors influencing the awareness of RUD. Conclusion Both management and education should be executed at the same time to elevate the level of rational use of drug. In order to increase the level of RUD we should complete monitoring institution and improving RUD awareness of workers. Additionally enhancing the rationality of medication should be performed by establishing guidelines of treatment or medication. Improving personal knowledge, scientific information and medication custom should be performed by standardizing regulations, strengthening management, emphasizing education and promoting communication between doctors and patients.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the necessary factors of questionnaires design on patients' values and preferences in order to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires when developing clinical practice guidelines.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient values and preferences. The authors included the articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options. We assessed the questionnaires' construction with psychometric methodology and summarized the necessary factors on patients' preferences and values into the domains and items.ResultsTwenty articles were eventually included. Five out of 20 studies (25%, 5/20) described the process of item generation while merely one questionnaire (5%, 1/20) mentioned pilot testing. Regarding validity, there were 6 questionnaires (30%, 6/20) that assessed validity. For acceptability, the time taken to complete the questionnaires range from 10 to 30 minutes and only 6 studies reported response rates. The results showed that the factors affecting the design of questionnaires on patients' values and preference were related to the effectiveness, safety, prognostic factors and others. The main factors were the effects, side effects and risk of complications, risk of relapse and the cost of treatments.ConclusionsOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patients' preference and values. There is still no valid or reliable questionnaires for patients' preference and values when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patients' preference and values. It is suggested that the factors this study provides can be used in formulating questionnaires on patients' preference and values.