ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in domestic medical journals from 2012 to 2013 and compare with the quality of guidelines published before. MethodsCNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were searched to collect guidelines from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data. The AGREE Ⅱ instrument was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines. ResultsA total of 78 guidelines were identified. Among them, 37 guidelines were published in 2012, and 41 in 2013. The scores of 6 domains' scores of AGREE Ⅱ were as follows:scope and purpose (24%), stakeholder involvement (11%), rigour of development (7%), clarity of presentation (32%), applicability (7%), and editorial independence (4%). The results of subgroup analysis indicated that, the scores in 5 domains (except applicability) of the guidelines published in CSCD journals were higher than those of non CSCD journals; the scores in 4 domains (except stakeholder involvement and applicability) of the guidelines received funds were higher than those of guidelines with no funds; and the scores in 5 domains (except editorial independence) of the guidelines published in 2013 were higher than those in 2012. ConclusionThe guidelines published from 2012 to 2013 have higher quality than guidelines published before 2012, but great discrepancies exist when comparing with international guidelines of average level. Chinese guidelines developers should attach importance to international methodology to develop guidelines, and use the AGREE Ⅱ instrument to develop and report guidelines.
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.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation, and to provide methodological advice for developing and updating CPGs for atrial fibrillation in future. MethodsCBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect filter relevant CPGs from inception to Feburary, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the quality of eligible CPGs by using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument. ResultsA total of 10 CPGs were included. The standardized mean scores for AGREE Ⅱ were: 54.17% for scope and purpose, 18.89% for stakeholder involvement, 15.89% for rigor of development, 66.39% for clarity and presentation, 34.9% for applicability, and 0 for editorial independence. ConclusionsThe quality of Chinese CPGs for atrial fibrillation is low. More efforts should be made to enhance the quality of CPGs for atrial fibrillation using methodological rigorous frameworks and strengthen guideline reporting.
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.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines and consensus of lupus nephritis, to collect the recommendations of each guideline, and to provide references for clinical decision-making. Methods PubMed, CNKI, and CBM databases and related websites such as NGC, NICE, GIN, SIGN, and Medive were electronically searched from January 2012 to December 2020 to collect the clinical guidelines and expert consensus for lupus nephritis. After consistency evaluation by four evaluators, the methodological quality of the included guidelines or expert consensus was evaluated using AGREE Ⅱ. The relevant recommendations, evidence level, and recommended strength of each guideline in treating lupus nephritis were summarized. Results A total of eight guidelines and two consensus statements were included. Among them, eight guidelines or consensus statements were level B (generally recommended guidelines), and two were level C (non-recommended guidelines). Relevant recommendations mainly gave the corresponding treatment scheme according to the pathological type of lupus nephritis. Conclusion The methodological quality of lupus nephritis guideline formulation in China needs to be improved. The included guidelines and consensus can provide reference for clinical decision-makers. However, higher-quality clinical practice guidelines for the Chinese population are needed to be developed in the future.
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.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of guidelines for pharmacological intervention of migraine in adults, to compare and analyze the differences in first-line drug recommendations in different regions and quality levels, so as to explore the evidence of drug recommendations, and provide a basis for clinical decision-making.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data databases, Up To Date, as well as the related books, Yimaitong, Guideline Central, Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched to collect pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults from inception to January 12th, 2020. The methodological quality of the guidelines was evaluated by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ).ResultsA total of 25 guidelines were included (including 22 evidence-based guidelines), covering 10 countries on 4 continents and World Health Organization (WHO) with a time span of 1997 to 2019. According to AGREE Ⅱ, 5 were A-level guidelines, 18 were B-level guidelines, and 2 were C-level guidelines. Scope and purpose, rigour of development, clarity of presentations and editorial independence obtained high average scores (more than 60%) among all 25 guidelines. The average scores of guidelines in different domains of AGREE Ⅱ varied with regions and countries. Triptans and NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended as first-line drugs for the acute management; beta-blockers and antiepileptic drugs were recommended for the first-line prevention drugs of migraine in adults. There were 2 guidelines that recommended complementary treatments, one recommended traditional Chinese medicine and another recommended herbal butterbur.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults is suboptimal among different regions or countries. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. The consistency of first-line drug recommendations is strong, but there are still regional differences. The therapeutic effect of traditional Chinese medicine requires further verification.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality, status of clinical practice guidelines on stomatology in China and discuss existing problems, so as to provide references for developing evidence-based guidelines. MethodsComprehensive search was conducted up to January 2014 for relevant clinical practice guidelines on stomatology, and the retrieval date was January 30th, 2014. After data extraction from eligibility guidelines, the quality was evaluated using the AGREE Ⅱ instrument and then descriptive analysis was performed. ResultsFinally a total of 18 guidelines were included, of which, 13 were for oral and maxillofacial surgery diseases. Based on the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, the average scores on the six domains were as follows:71.1% for scope and purpose, 40.1% for stakeholder involvement, 28.8% for rigor of development, 71.5% for clarity of presentation, 42.6% for applicability, and 8.6% for editorial independence. ConclusionThe overall quality of clinical practice guidelines on stomatology in China is relatively poor, only a few diseases are concerned, and no evidence-based guideline has been developed so far. However, considered the limitations of this study, the results of this study is only for a reference.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus of chronic heart failure domestically and abroad.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, and related websites were searched to collect guidelines and expert consensus on chronic heart failure published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2020. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the guidelines and expert consensus with the AGREE Ⅱ tool after the consistency evaluation training.ResultsA total of 17 studies were included (consisting of 11 English and 6 Chinese studies). The recommended levels were B level (recommend after modification) for 10 studies and C level (not recommended) for 7 studies. The AGREE Ⅱ standardized mean scores for various fields were 69.61% (scope and purpose), 34.20% (stakeholder involvement), 33.13% (rigor of development), 84.53% (clarity and presentation), 42.40% (applicability), and 37.09% (editorial independence). The methodological quality of English guidelines was generally high (level B for 10 and level C for 1), while all scores of Chinese guidelines or consensus in the 6 fields were mostly lower than the average (level C for 6).ConclusionsThe guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure requires further improvement in terms of stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. It should develop standards and methods to improve the quality for Chinese guidelines and expert consensus to better serve clinical practice.
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.