Objective To update and form an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 1.0). Methods We updated the systematic review of global guideline clinical applicability evaluation instruments to form the initial item list and carried out Delphi expert consultation to establish the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Results The general structure of version 2.0 was consistent with that of version 1.0, which included 12 evaluation items belonging to five domains covering accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility, and an overall evaluation. Moreover, some new items were added in version 2.0, such as "The guideline does not provide supporting tools or resources and the operation is poor", "After the guideline implementation, the expected effects of diagnosis and treatment do not be achieved", " Medical staff in your workplace believe that the guideline is not necessary because they have sufficient medical experience, etc.", "Lack of authority of the organizations and personnel that developed the guideline" and "Medical staff in your workplace are reluctant to change the original medical practice". Conclusion This study updated and formed an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0), which is able to better assess the applicability of new clinical guidelines and greatly promote more appropriate guidelines into practice.
RoB2 (revised version 2019), an authoritative tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, has been updated and improved based on the original version. This article elaborated and interpreted the background and main content of RoB2 (revised version 2019), as well as the operation process of the new software. Compared with the previous version of RoB2 (revised version 2018), RoB2 (revised version 2019) has the advantages of rich content, complete details, accurate questions, and simple operation, etc. Additionally, it is more user-friendly for researchers and beginners. The risk bias assessment of randomized controlled trials is more comprehensive and accurate, and it is an authoritative, trustworthy, and popular tool for evaluating the risk of bias in randomized controlled studies in medical practice.
ObjectivesTo investigate the current status of the clinical applicability evaluation tools, and to provide some foundation for establishment of the clinical applicability evaluation index system.Methods7 databases, 6 guideline databases and 16 academic institutions and the administrative department of health website were systematically searched from inception to April 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then included the literature related to the applicability of clinical guidelines. The CPG clinical applicability evaluation index was initially prepared through the subject comprehensive method.ResultsA total of 19 articles were finally included. Among them, there were 4 evaluation tools for the clinical applicability of the guidelines, and 15 evaluation tools for the guideline clinical applicability evaluation items. Through combing and comparison, we found that these tools had differences in evaluators, evaluation fields and items.ConclusionsThe global guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools have different kinds of problems, such as that the tools are not targeted, the indicators are not well-formed, and the methodological knowledge requirement of the evaluators is high. There is still a lack of guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools from target users’ view.
The AMSTAR 2, a critical appraisal tool, was developed for assessing systematic reviews which included randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. It was recently published in BMJ. This paper introduces AMSTAR 2 and interprets its usage by a published systematic review.
The background and status of the quality assessment instruments of clinical trials, and several frequently used instruments both domesticly and abroad were introduced, and the problems in this field were discussed.
【摘要】 目的 评价亚洲骨质疏松自我评价工具（OSTA）和我国妇女骨质疏松筛选工具（OSTC）与四川地区围绝经期和绝经后汉族妇女骨密度的关系，比较两种工具对骨质疏松症的筛检能力，探讨其临床应用价值。 方法 2010年7—10月筛选获得356名45岁以上妇女的双能X线骨密度仪腰椎、股骨颈和全髋骨密度数据，利用体重和年龄分别计算OSTA指数与OSTC指数，并进行比较。 结果 OSTA指数与OSTC指数和各部位骨密度值均呈正相关（r=0.458~0.593和r=0.440~0.599，Plt;0.001），两种筛选指数之间呈正相关（r=0.956，Plt;0.001）。按两级危险程度分类界值进行判定，OSTA和OSTC的灵敏度分别为78.2%、93.5%，特异度为67.2%、43.0%，受试者工作特征曲线下面积为0.792、0.798，Kappa系数为0.452、0.357。 结论 OSTA与OSTC应用于四川地区围绝经期和绝经后妇女骨质疏松症的筛查效果均不理想，临床应用价值受限。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the relationship between osteoporosis self-assessment tool for asians (OSTA), osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTC) and bone mineral density in Sichuan perimenopausal and postmenopausal women of Han nationality, and discuss the value of their clinical application through comparison of the screening ability of the two tools in predicting osteoporosis and low bone mass. Methods With the data of bone mineral density at lumbar spine, femoral neck and total proximal femur measured by DXA of 356 women aged 45 years old and above, OSTA and OSTC risk indexes of each subject were calculated based on their weight and age, and were then compared. Results The bone mineral density of above-mentioned locations were positively correlated with OSTA and OSTC indexes (r=0.458-0.593 and r=0.440-0.599,Plt;0.001), and these two indexes were also correlated positively (r=0.956, Plt;0.001). According to the two risk levels by these cutoffs, OSTA and OSTC indexes could diagnose osteoporosis with the sensitivity of 78.2% and 93.5%, the specificity of 67.2% and 43%, the area under ROC curve of 0.792 and 0.798, and the Kappa value of 0.452 and 0.357, respectively. Conclusion Both OSTA and OSTC were not ideal tools for screening osteoporosis in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women in Sichuan province.
ObjectivesTo establish a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators.MethodsThe research group formed a multidisciplinary team to establish an evidence- based tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines through systematic evaluation and two rounds of Delphi expert consultation and external audit.ResultsThe established tool consisted: evaluator basic information (12 items); clinical applicability evaluation (12 items, including availability, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation); and scoring scheme.ConclusionsThis study has established a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators and provides criteria and methods for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines.
The instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) is designed to evaluate the clinical applicability of guidelines quantitatively. It is helpful to select guidelines with high clinical applicability and provide suggestions for revision. The evaluators are consistent with the target users of guidelines. The instrument consists of basic information, evaluation items and scoring scheme. The evaluation items are related to accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation. Therefore, this article provides a detailed interpretation of the instrument and references for future users.
The risk of bias assessment tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) for analyzing cluster randomized trials and crossover trials (revised version 2021) has been updated. The current paper briefly delineates the history of the RoB 2.0 tool and includes an explanation and interpretation of the updated contents and software operation process for use with cluster randomized trials and crossover trials. Compared with the previous versions, the updated RoB 2.0 tool (revised version 2021) has the advantage of precise language and is easily understood. Thus, the updated RoB 2.0 tool merits popularization and further general application.