Reporting quality of chronic kidney disease practice guidelines according to the RIGHT statement: a systematic analysis

Zhao, Yang; Li, Yanyan; Li, Junwei; Song, Weijuan; Zhao, Jun; Xu, Yan; Zhai, Yongxia; Xu, Shuai-Min

doi:10.1177/2040622320922017

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the reporting quality of some domains are poor commonly. The following sub-items have the lowest reporting proportion:16,19b,17,8b,18b, and it is similar to that reported in other literature generally [25,26] .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Recommendations for Esophageal Cancer

Ni,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the process of diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer, the clinical guidelines is of great significance for the medical behavior of clinicians and application of new research results. However, a non-standard formulation of the guidelines may mislead clinicians and bring unnecessary financial burden to patients. This study is to evaluate the quality of the guidelines. Methods: We identified the clinical practice guidelines or recommendations published in the English database since 2018 that guide for the diagnosis or treatment of esophageal cancer. Two reviewers used RIGHT checklist to evaluate the quality of eligible guidelines independently. Results: A total of 15 guidelines and recommendations meet the inclusion criteria. Six of them are from China, four from the United States, three from Japan, and the remaining two are from Canada and Germany. Among them, there are 4 in Chinese and 11 in English. The evaluation of these guidelines and recommendations showed that the reporting proportion of 4 articles was less than 50%. The average reporting proportion of 15 articles is 60.00%. Of the seven domains covered by RIGHT checklist, “basic information” has the highest reporting proportion (78.89%) and the lowest is “review and quality assurance” (13.33%). Of all sub-items, 3 are 100% reported, 13 (37.14%) sub-items are less than 50%. There is no difference between the Chinese guide and the English guide (P= 0.442). Conclusions: The reporting quality of the esophageal cancer guidelines published in the past three years is moderate, but there are some deficiencies in the domains of “review and quality assurance”, “funding and declaration and management of interests” and “other information”. Guideline developers should strictly follow the standard to improve the quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Recommendations for Esophageal Cancer

Ni,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the items in the ‘evidence’ domain 10b, only two CPGs were ‘reported’ and ‘partially reported,’ respectively. However, outcome selection is very important in the formulation of the PICO (patient, intervention, control, and outcome) question because it affects the balance of benefits and harms on which the proposal is based, and readers need to know how and why certain outcomes are selected [ 63 , 64 ]. In total, there were 35 items in seven domains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection and systematic analysis of the level of evidence for recommendations

Ou,

Li,

Liu

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To systematically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection and identify gaps that limit their development. Study design and setting CPGs for HP infection were systematically collected from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and six online guideline repositories. Three researchers independently used the AGREE Ⅱ tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the eligible CPGs. In addition, the reporting and recommendation qualities were appraised by using the RIGHT and AGREE-REX tools, respectively. The distribution of the level of evidence and strength of recommendation among evidence-based CPGs was determined. Results A total of 7,019 records were identified, and 24 CPGs met the eligibility criteria. Of the eligible CPGs, 19 were evidence-based and 5 were consensus-based. The mean overall rating score of AGREE II was 50.7% (SD = 17.2%). Among six domains, the highest mean score was for scope and purpose (74.4%, SD = 17.7%) and the lowest mean score was for applicability (24.3%, SD = 8.9). Only three of 24 CPGs were high-quality. The mean overall score of recommendation quality was 35.5% (SD = 12.2%), and the mean scores in each domain of AGREE-REX and RIGHT were all ≤ 60%, with values and preferences scoring the lowest (16.6%, SD = 11.9%). A total of 505 recommendations were identified. Strong recommendations accounted for 64.1%, and only 34.3% of strong recommendations were based on high-quality evidence. Conclusion The overall quality of CPGs for HP infection is poor, and CPG developers tend to neglect some domains, resulting in a wide variability in the quality of the CPGs. Additionally, CPGs for HP infection lack sufficient high-quality evidence, and the grading of recommendation strength should be based on the quality of evidence. The CPGs for HP infection have much room for improvement and further researches are required to minimize the evidence gap.

show abstract

“…But without transparent management of interests, the independence of guideline development will be questionable. Previous studies evaluating the reporting quality of guideline in other topics, for example integrative medicine and chronic kidney disease, also found deficiencies in reporting in these domains (51,52). Strengthening review and quality assurance, and a thorough and transparent declaration and management of conflicts of interest and funding sources is an effective way to improve the quality of current guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist

Chen¹,

Meng²,

Ding³

et al. 2021

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide.Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the prevention, surveillance, diagnosis and management of HCC are essential to guide clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent CPGs for HCC published worldwide.Methods: We systematically searched literature databases and websites of guideline development organizations and medical associations to extract CPGs on HCC published between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We assessed for each of the 35 RIGHT checklist items whether the guidelines reported the corresponding information. We calculated the mean (± standard error of the mean, SEM) percentages of the guidelines' compliance with the items (reporting rate), both overall and for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.Results: We identified 22 guidelines, of which three (14%) were written in Chinese and 19 (86%) in English. The mean ±SEM overall reporting rate in the twenty-two guidelines was 56%±4%. The reporting rates of the seven domains were the following: basic information 81%±3%, background 58%±6%, evidence 58%±6%, recommendations 59%±5%, review and quality assurance 34%±10%, funding and declaration and management of interests 39%±4%, and other information 23%±6%. Conclusions:The reporting quality of the recently published guidelines for HCC was suboptimal. While there is no doubt about the great value of the CPGs' recommendations in clinical practice, the reporting in CPGs for HCC still needs improvement.

show abstract

Reporting quality of chronic kidney disease practice guidelines according to the RIGHT statement: a systematic analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Recommendations for Esophageal Cancer

Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Recommendations for Esophageal Cancer

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection and systematic analysis of the level of evidence for recommendations

An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About