The Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 is a revision of the STARD 2003 on the checklist and flow chart, on the basis of the new evidences of potential bias and applicability, to better guide the application of diagnostic test in clinical practices. Currently, the interpretation and application in China is still based on STARD 2003. This review will describe the application status of the original version and introduce the updated standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
背景 研发随机对照试验报告规范 CONSORT 声明旨在帮助生物医学研究人员透明地报告随机对照试验（randomised controlled trials，RCTs）。我们已针对社会和心理干预措施制定了 CONSORT 2010 声明扩展版（CONSORT-SPI 2018），以帮助行为和社会科学家透明地报告这些研究。 方法 在对现有报告规范进行系统评价之后，我们进行了在线德尔菲流程（Delphi process）以优先考虑从系统评价中确定的 CONSORT-SPI 2018 清单的潜在条目。384 位国际参与者中有 321 位（84%）完成了 2 次调查。然后我们召开了由 31 位科学家、期刊编辑和研究资助者组成的共识会议（2014 年 3 月），最终确定 CONSORT-SPI 2018 检查清单和流程图的内容。 结果 CONSORT-SPI 2018 扩展了 CONSORT 2010 检查清单中的 9 个条目（包括亚条目在内的 14 个条目），增加了一个与利益相关方参与试验有关的新条目（包括 3 个亚条目），并修改了 CONSORT 2010 流程图。本解释与说明（E&E）文件是 CONSORT-SPI 2018 的用户手册，可帮助使用者更好地理解 CONSORT-SPI 2018。本文讨论了每个清单条目的含义和原理，并提供了完整及明晰的报告示例。 结论 CONSORT-SPI 2018 扩展版、解释与说明文件及 CONSORT 网站（www.consort-statement.org）是有助于改善社会和心理干预措施 RCTs 报告的有用资源。
背景 随机对照试验（randomized controlled trials，RCTs）常用于评估社会和心理干预措施的效果，这些结果亦常被用于制定决策。有关社会及心理干预措施试验结果的准确、完整和透明的报告，对了解针对这些干预措施的临床试验设计、实施、结果及这些结果的应用至关重要。然而，关于社会和心理干预措施的 RCT 报告质量仍不理想。CONSORT（consolidated standards of reporting trials）声明改善了生物医学领域 RCT 的报告质量，同样，行为和社会科学方面也需要类似的高质量报告规范。我们的目标是基于 RCT 报告规范 2010 年声明（Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement，CONSORT 2010）的官方扩展版，制定适用于社会和心理干预措施（social and psychological interventions，SPI）的 RCT 报告规范（CONSORT-SPI 2018）。 方法 我们遵循最佳方案制定报告规范的扩展版。首先，我们对现有报告规范进行了系统评价。随后，我们进行了有 384 位国际参与者参加的德尔菲在线调查。2014 年 3 月，我们举行了为期 3 天的共识会议，由 31 位专家参与，确定针对社会和心理干预措施的 RCT 报告的检查清单内容。专家们仔细讨论了先前与社会和心理干预措施 RCT 相关的研究和方法学问题。然后，投票决定对 CONSORT 2010 条目的修改或扩展。 结果 CONSORT-SPI 2018 检查清单扩展了 CONSORT 2010 的 25 个条目中的 9 个，包括：背景和目标、试验设计、受试者、干预措施、统计方法、受试者流程、基线数据、结果和估计及资助来源。此外，与会者还添加了一个与利益相关方参与度有关的新条目，此外，也修改了与受试者招募和及其后续维持相关的流程图。 结论 作者应使用 CONSORT-SPI 2018 来改善社会和心理干预相关的 RCT 的报告质量。期刊应修改编辑政策和程序，要求作者使用报告规范准备相关稿件，要求同行评议者使用报告规范评审相关稿件，以使读者能够评估研究的质量，评价研究结果的推广性，并重复有效的干预措施。
ObjectiveTo develop a transparent evaluation tool for the transparency of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsLiterature, books and policy documents related to the transparency of guidelines were retrieved from PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, WanFang Data and CNKI databases to form a pool of items. After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the items were modified and scored to determine whether to be included in the final evaluation system. Expert consensus would determine the organization and evaluation method of the final tool.ResultsA total of 77 references were included, and 399 items related to transparency of guidelines were extracted. The items pool containing 53 items was formed after normalization and de-duplication. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, the evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines covering 32 items in 6 areas was formed. The established tool consisted of planning (5 items), personnel selection (6 items), conflict of interest management (6 items), recommendation formation process (8 items), external review process (3 items), and guide reporting process (4 items).ConclusionsThe developed evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines can provide a standard for the formulation, evaluation and utilization of guidelines from the perspective of transparency.
ObjectiveTo develop a transparency evaluation tool 2.0 of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) oriented by public trust. MethodsThe Delphi method was employed to score and select the importance and operability of evaluation indicators. The analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the weights of the indicators. And the final evaluation indicator system was determined through expert consensus meeting. ResultsIt constructed two first-level indicators including conflict of interest and formulation process, and six second-level indicators, including guideline developers, reviewers, protocol and registration, evidence production, recommendation formation, and external review. Based on the second-level indicators, a total of 21 third-level indicators were constructed from the perspectives of disclosure and management. The logical structure of the tool is rigorous and harmonious. ConclusionThe CPGs transparency assessment tool 2.0 developed in this study provides measurement standards and an evaluation framework for assessing transparency in CPGs.