Based on previous evidence-based researches and teaching experience, our team conducted literature and book review, and summarized 4 requirements, 1) effect measure calculation and conversion, 2) registration of evidence-based research, 3) evidence-based research database and 4) quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. We developed an online platform of evidence-based medicine research helper using the front-end and back-end technology, which can be accessed using www.ebm-helper.cn. Currently, the online tool has included 46 scenarios for effect measure calculation and conversion, introduction of 7 evidence-based research registration platforms, 26 commonly used databases for evidence-based research and 29 quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. This online tool can help researchers to solve specific problems encountered in different stages of evidence-based medicine research. Promoting the application of this platform in evidence-based medicine will help researchers to use the tool scientifically and improve research efficiency.
Objective The ultimate goal of developing guidelines is for using them in clinical practice. In this study, an implementation evaluation tool was developed to promote the overall evaluation of guidelines and to improve their promotion and implementation. Methods The research group set up a team to formulate and establish a guideline implementation evaluation tool, through preliminary research, interviews, a systematic review of relevant literature, two expert consensus meetings and two Delphi expert consensus meetings to evaluate the guideline implementation tool. Experts were invited to give opinions and grades on the fields, items and overall implementation evaluation method of the tool. Results The evaluation tool for the implementation of guidelines included 5 fields, accessibility, communicability, performability, recognizability and applicability, with a total of 7 items. The scale-level CVIs in two rounds of Delphi expert consensus were 0.91 and 0.93. We collected opinions and suggestions and made some revisions and insertions without deleting any items based on the parameter that no items fulfilled the standard if mean <3.5, coefficient of variation >15% and I-CVI<0.78. Conclusion In this study, in order to provide a standard and method for the evaluation of guideline implementation, a guideline implementation evaluation tool has been developed and evaluated by clinically-related physicians and guideline formulation methodology experts. The guideline implementation evaluation tool presents satisfactory face and content validity. Empirical research is needed to verify the tool’s performance in evaluating guideline implementation.
ObjectiveTo develop the questionnaire and test its reliability for investigating route, prevention, and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staffs.MethodsThis questionnaire was development based on the COVID-19 relevant guidelines, official documents issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China, and published studies. The development group performed repeated discussions and drafted the first questionnaire, then performed expert consultation and revised the draft according to their suggestions. Eventually, some frontline medical staffs were invited to carry out pre-test investigation of the questionnaire and test its reliability.ResultsThe first draft included 48 items; 18 experts were invited in the first round questionnaire and 10 experts in the second round questionnaire. The positive coefficient of experts in these two rounds was both greater than 75%, and the authority coefficient of experts' opinions was greater than 0.70. The variation coefficient of these items was between 0.00 and 0.35, the coordination coefficient of experts was 0.193 (P<0.05). The experts of above two rounds put forward 14 suggestions for text modification or adjustment options of some items; after the development group held repeatedly discussions, a total of 8 items were performed secondary consultation and finally reached consensus. The final questionnaire included two domains of questionnaire before and after confirmed diagnosis. The domain "before confirmed diagnosis" covered 4 sections and 29 items involving infectious cause, plan and knowledge of prevention and control, and psychological symptoms. The domain "after confirmed diagnosis" covered 5 sections and 21 items, included symptoms, treatment, and psychological status after diagnosis; impact on the surrounding environment and people, and awareness of protection after infection. The pre-test results showed that the total items were considerably numerous, some items were difficult to understand, some laboratory results and treatment conditions were ambiguous, etc. After modification and re-testing, the test-re-test reliability of each domain was between 0.74 and 0.93, and the overall re-test reliability of the questionnaire content was 0.82.ConclusionsThis research has developed a questionnaire for investigating infection process, prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staff, and the items considered two domains prior to and after confirmed diagnosis. The reliability and practicability of the questionnaire are acceptable.