XUN Yangqin 1,2,3 # , CHENG Peng 4 # , LI Xiuxia 1,2,3 , WEI Dang 2 , YAO Liang 5 , PAN Bei 1 , YAN Peijing 6 , XU Ke 1 , LI Yanan 1,2,3 , GUO Tiankang 6 , YANG Kehu 2,3
  • 1. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
  • 2. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
  • 4. Department of Orthopedics, Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730030, P.R.China;
  • 5. Chinese Medicine Faculty of Hong Kong Baptist University, HongKong, 999077, P.R.China;
  • 6. Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
YANG Kehu, Email: kehuyangebm2006@126.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

ObjectivesTo investigate sources of evidence of the clinical pathways approved by the Chinese government.MethodsThe approved clinical pathways were obtained from the website of the National Health and Family Planning Commission. Two reviewers independently extracted the basic information, approval date, types of evidence of the clinical pathways and time of evidence. The variance analysis was performed for the diagnosis and treatment parts of clinical pathways and the LSD method was further used for comparison.ResultsThe main types of evidence were guidelines, textbooks, standard indicators and consensus views. Approximately 80% of the pathways cited clinical practice guidelines and 36% cited the textbooks. The median number of evidence for each clinical pathway was 2. Approximately 85% of the evidence could be obtained the time when the evidence published. The average time interval (between the time when the pathways released and the time when the evidence published) was 5.2 years. Specifically, textbooks constituted the largest proportion in all evidence that was over 15 years of time interval. In addition to the textbook comparison standard indicators, there were significant differences in time interval between guidelines or consensus and textbooks or standard indicators.Conclusions The evidence types selection is based on the concept of evidence-based medicine, yet the time span of the referred evidence is larger. Therefore, developing clinical pathways not only need to refer to the latest research evidence comprehensively and enhance transparency of clinical pathways, but also use evidence quality evaluation standards to evaluate and select the referred evidences.

Citation: XUN Yangqin, CHENG Peng, LI Xiuxia, WEI Dang, YAO Liang, PAN Bei, YAN Peijing, XU Ke, LI Yanan, GUO Tiankang, YANG Kehu. An investigation of the sources of evidence of the clinical pathways in China. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(10): 1032-1036. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201801133 Copy

  • Previous Article

    The predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in the diagnosis of children complicated appendicitis
  • Next Article

    Economic burden of surgical treatment for ankle fracture in China: a systematic review