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.
Objective To evaluate quality and current status of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines and consensus, and to promote the improvements in the quality of guidelines and consensus. Methods A systematic collection of TCM guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022 was conducted. We used scientific, transparent, and applicable ranking tools (STAR) for evaluation, analyzed the scoring rates (%), and assessed the quality level and influencing factors of guidelines and consensus through methods such as comparison and stratification. Results A total of 130 TCM guidelines and consensus were included. Guideline areas with higher scores included recommendations (65.3%), evidence (55.9%), and guideline development groups (54.2%). In the case of consensus, higher scores were observed in recommendations (38.7%), guideline development groups (37.0%), and funding (30.0%). The total score rate of TCM guidelines exceeded that of national guidelines, while the consensus rate was lower. Stratified analysis revealed statistical differences in guideline score rates among journals and issuing institutions, as well as significant differences in consensus score rates among journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories. Conclusion The quantity and quality of TCM guidelines and consensus are on a positive trajectory, with higher quality levels in guidelines than in consensus. The overall quality of TCM guidelines surpasses that of national guidelines, particularly emphasizing the scientificity of guideline formulation. However, the overall quality of consensus remains lower than that of the national consensus. Factors such as journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories are identified as potential influences on the quality of TCM guidelines and consensus.
By employing the nominal group technique, as per the process standard of the EQUATOR Collaboration Network, experts were selected through purposeful sampling. Two rounds of nominal group discussions were conducted, and the essential information of the utilization of the consensus method was extracted from the literature. After comparison, discussion, evaluation, and optimization, a list of 3 fields, 11 themes, 63 necessary items, and 28 supplementary items was eventually constructed to upgrade the standardization and rigor of the application of the consensus method in the future, assisting guideline developers to plan the consensus process.
With the rapid development of fundus imaging technology, it is of great significance to establish a new naming system for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) based on the multi-mode imaging. In 2020, an international panel of retina specialists, imaging and image reading center experts, and ocular pathologists reached a consensus after repeated discussions, a new name for nAMD subtype and related lesions was established based on the previous knowledge of fundus fluorescein angiography and pathology, combining indocyanine green angiography, optical coherence tomography and optical coherence tomography angiography with current pathological knowledge, in order to help ophthalmologists to study nAMD. The consensus proposed the term "macular neovascularization" and classified it into type 1, type 2 and type 3. Many lesions related to macular neovascularization, such as pigment epithelial detachment, hemorrhage, fibrosis, rip of retinal pigment epithelium and so on, were named. The new designation will help improve clinical communication between different studies, establish standard definitions and terms between reading centers and researchers, and further promote the understanding and communication of nAMD among ophthalmologists.
吸入疗法是治疗呼吸系统疾病的常用方法, 包括气雾吸入、经储雾罐气雾吸入、干粉吸入以及雾化吸入等, 而以雾化吸入疗效最确切, 适应证也最广泛。但是, 关于雾化吸入治疗的用药方案以及药物配伍信息却非常有限。近期美国卫生系统药师协会发表的常用雾化吸入药物混合配伍指南[ 1 ] 提出了可供雾化吸入的药物及其配伍的各种推荐意见, 并采用表格形式便于临床医生理解和掌握。成人慢性气道疾病雾化吸入治疗专家组在该指南的基础上, 结合中国呼吸道疾病雾化吸入治疗现状, 制定了雾化吸入药物治疗共识, 同时根据不同的疾病提出雾化治疗推荐方案, 以供临床医师参考。
Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a group of severe retinal degenerative diseases leading to permanent visual impairment. IRDs are the major cause of irreversible blindness in children and working age groups. Gene therapy is a new clinical treatment method and currently the only clear and effective treatment for IRDs, while, there are still risks in clinical research and application. How to standardize perioperative management and reduce the potential risks of treatment is one of the keys to ensure the safety and effectiveness of treatment. However, there is no systematic and standardized guidance on the perioperative management for IRDs gene therapy. Therefore, in order to standardize the perioperative management, the Fundus Disease Group of Ophthalmology Society of Chinese Medical Association and Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized domestic experts to put forward standardized opinions on the perioperative management of IRDs gene therapy in China after repeated discussion and combined with domestic and foreign research experience, so as to provide clinicians with reference and application in clinical research and practice.
The management of middle-aged and youth hypertension has become a challenge in clinical practice. The hypertension group of the Chinese Society of Cardiology published the expert consensus on the management of hypertension in young and middle-aged Chinese population in 2019. This paper interprets the key contents of the consensus and provides references for management of young and middle-aged hypertension.
Massive cerebral infarction with malignant brain edema has poor prognosis with very high mortality, despite aggressive medical treatment. Surgical decompression is recommended by Chinese and international clinical guidelines for patients with massive cerebral infarction, however, there is no standardized diagnosis and treatment protocol in clinical practice. Following the principle of evidence-based medicine and based on the diagnosis and treatment norms of the participating hospitals of Severe Ischaemic Stroke Collaboration in recent years, we recommend this consensus statement of the standardized surgical decompression for malignant brain edema in massive cerebral infarction.
As a tool for building consensus among groups, Delphi technique has been widely used in healthcare research which is appropriate for clinical questions where quantitative methods are unlikely to yield results that can be successfully implemented in practice. Researchers in palliative care developed standards for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES). This paper introduces and interprets the specific content of CREDES standards, with a view to providing reference for the evaluation of Delphi research design quality and report transparency.