Objective To analyze the methodological quality of clinical practice guideline mentioned “evidence-based” in China. Methods We selected clinical guidelines developed based on evidence issued by the Chinese Medical Association in 2010-2012, and meanwhile, we conducted additional search for guidelines on clinical major diseases. Then, we selected literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluated the included guidelines according to 8 items relevant to methodological rigor which were selected from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). If the guidelines comply with the item, we recorded 1 point, otherwise 0 point. Results a) Among twenty-two included guidelines, 13 were originated and 9 were updated once every 3 to 5 years. b) Diseases covered stroke, diabetes, chronic hepatitis B, hypertension, pediatric nutrition, etc. c) The number of guideline references were 10 to 218, of which, nine guidelines cited 24 Cochrane systematic reviews (CDSRs), accounted for 2.62% (24/916). Among them, the acute ischemic stroke guideline cited the most (7 CDSRs). d) The number of experts involved in guidelines development was 2 to 95 and guidelines pages were 4 to 150. e) The guidelines’ quality generally scored 4 to 7, most of which described the process of guidelines development. The grades of recommendation were consistent with the levels of evidence. But most of the included guidelines did not clearly described literature research methods, peer reviewer, and update procedures. Conclusion There is a growing trend that clinical guidelines are developed based on evidence in China. However, the quality of reporting and the methodological rigor of guidelines need further improvement. The citation rates of Cochrane systematic reviews in these guidelines were relatively low. We suggest that guideline recommendations should be consistent with the levels of evidence and adapt to local conditions, and relevant support policies for guideline implementation in practice. In future, attention should be paid to the aspects of guideline development methods, reporting standard, guideline accessibility, and standard training for relevant personnel.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.