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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 systematically review the methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diagnosis and management of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, Yimaitong databases, website of Diabetes Branch of Chinese Medical Association, website of Chinese Integrative Medicine Association and website of Peripheral Vascular Disease Professional Committee of Chinese Society of Microcirculation were electronically searched to collect relevant CPGs from inception to May, 2020. Four researchers independently evaluated the CPGs methodological quality by using AGREEⅡ tool.ResultsA total of 10 Chinese CPGs for diabetes foot were included. The standardized mean scores for various fields were 75.74% for scope and purpose, 36.58% for stakeholder involvement, 28.61% for rigor of development, 86.30% for clarity and presentation, 43.47% for applicability, and 9.44% for editorial independence. ConclusionsThere are merely a small quantity of diabetic foot guidelines in China, and the methodological quality is insufficient. Therefore, more attention should be focused on the establishment of guidelines in the future, so as to further improve the quality of Chinese diabetic foot guidelines.
ObjectiveTo analyze the current status of children's clinical practice guidelines from 2010 to 2021, and to evaluate the quality of evidence-based guidelines for children. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases and relevant domestic and foreign guideline websites were searched to collect Chinese pediatric clinical guidelines from January 1st 2010 to September 13th 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data; 4 reviewers used AGREE Ⅱ to evaluate the quality of the included evidence-based guidelines. ResultsA total of 164 guidelines were included, which involved 65 evidence-based guidelines and 99 non-evidence-based guidelines, 113 western medicine guidelines and 51 traditional Chinese medicine guidelines. The majority of the diseases with high hospitalization burden were covered by those guidelines, including 35 guidelines for respiratory diseases, ranking first among all diseases. However, there was no guideline for pediatric cardiovascular disease in China. The average scores for 65 evidence-based guidelines in 6 individual domains were 65.2%, 49.6%, 59.3%, 68.5%, 23.9% and 83.6%. ConclusionsThe scores for applicability, stakeholder involvement, and rigor of development are low for Chinese guideline for children. There is a lack of pediatric clinical guidelines for circulatory disorders.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of the current global breast cancer screening guidelines so as to provide useful information for domestic study in the future.MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and some cancer official websites to collect breast cancer screening guidelines from inception to February, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of the guidelines by using AGREE II tool and RIGHT statement.ResultsA total of 11 guidelines were included, in which 5 guidelines (45%) were issued by the USA. The results of the quality assessment showed that: the average scores in the " scale and objective”, " participants”, " rigorism”, " clarity”, " application”, and " independence” of all guidelines were 83, 48, 60, 77, 53 and 79, respectively. 6 guidelines were evaluated as level A and 5 as level B. For the reporting quality, 3 guidelines were of high quality, including 2 in the USA and 1 in Canada.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of breast cancer screening guidelines are at present very satisfactory. The quantity of clinical guidelines shows an increasing trend. Multi-country contribution to one guideline is another trend. The evidence-based methodology has been accepted globally in the guideline development.