ObjectivesTo assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diagnosis and management of cough in China, and to provide methodological experiences for updating and developing the evidence-based guideline in this field in future. MethodsWe searched CBM, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases, and Chinese clinical guidelines' website to identify and select CPGs related to cough in China. Four reviewers independently evaluated the quality of eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Ⅱ instrument. ResultsSix guidelines were included. The mean scores for six AGREE Ⅱ domains were low:scope and purpose 61.1%, stakeholder involvement 26.6%, rigor of development 16.7%, clarity and presentation 58.3%, applicability 11.1%, and editorial independence 0.0%. ConclusionThe quality of guidelines for cough in China is low. More efforts are urgently needed to develop high quality Chinese guidelines using methodologically rigorous development frameworks and strengthen guideline reporting.
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.
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.
ObjectivesTo investigate the current situation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of gastric cancer in China, and to assess the quality of these CPGs, so as to provide reference for developing the CPGs of gastric cancer normatively in the future.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect the CPGs of gastric cancer in China from inception to January 31st, 2018. Four reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of these CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ).ResultsA total of 12 guidelines published from 2007 to 2017 were included. Only 1 guideline was evidence-based guideline. The average scores of guidelines in six domains of AGREE Ⅱ were 83.3%, 42.2%, 16.3%, 80.2%, 37.3% and 0% respectively.ConclusionsThe overall quality of included CPGs is insufficient. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines in China. More attention should be paid to rigor of development and applicability during the development of CPGs in the future, and a timely upgrade is also required.
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.
Objectives To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma published in 2016 and 2017 in China. Methods CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched for clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma in China. The search date was from Jan. 1st, 2016 to Jan. 1st, 2018. Four researchers independently selected literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) was utilized to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Results A total of 7 guidelines were included. The average scores of six domains for these guidelines were: 65.1% for scope and purpose, 39.4% for stakeholders’ involvement, 64.3% for rigor of development, 55.6% for clarity of presentation, 61.8% for applicability and 6.1% for editorial independence. Conclusions The quality of clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma in China is relative high, of which the recommendations are of great value in clinical practice, yet still required to be improved in some ways.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Chinese rehabilitation medicine.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and Medlive databases were electronically searched to collect CPGs of Chinese rehabilitation medicine from January 1979 to May 2018. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs by AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 11 CPGs were included, which involved 5 CPGs on nervous system rehabilitation, 1 CPG on bone and joint system rehabilitation, 1 CPG each on pediatric rehabilitation, internal medicine system rehabilitation, burn rehabilitation, earthquake rehabilitation and rehabilitation diagnosis and treatment criteria respectively. The results of AGREE Ⅱ score showed that the average scores on six domains were 65.3%, 28.0%, 9.3%, 42.1%, 6.3% and 4.0%. There were not any level A (recommended) guidelines. Two guidelines were level B (recommended after being revised). The other nine guidelines were level C (not recommended).ConclusionsThere are a few rehabilitation CPGs in China and the quality of methodology is low. AGREE's methods and concepts have not been fully used for formulation. The rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of guidelines should be emphasized, so as to produce high level CPGs and improve clinical practice quality in rehabilitation medicine.
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.
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 assess the methodological quality of guidelines for bronchoscopic alveolar lavage. MethodsCNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, CBM, Web of Science, PubMed, EMbase databases and medlive.cn, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the National Guideline International Network (GIN), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), and the World Health Organization (WHO) websites were electronically searched to collect guidelines of bronchoscopic alveolar lavage from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the guidelines by using AGREE Ⅱ tool. ResultsA total of 19 guidelines were included, with 5 from China, 5 from the USA, 3 from Europe, 2 from the UK, 1 from Australia, 1 from Israel, 1 from Spain, and 1 from India. The average standard score rates of the 19 guidelines in the six fields were 50.73% for scope and purpose, 20.02% for participants, 15.13% for formulation rigor, 36.40% for clarity of presentation, 3.51% for applicability, and 22.37% for editorial independence.ConclusionsThe quality of bronchoalveolar lavage guidelines remains relatively low.