Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia according to the RIGHT checklist: systematic review

Wang, Can; Luo, Xufei; Li, Maichao; Cui, Lingling; Li, Xinde; Han, Lin; Wang, Xuefeng; Ren, Wei; He, Yuwei; Sun, Wenyan; Li, Changgui; Chen, Yaolong; Liu, Zhen

doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01645-1

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factors contributing to the low overall reporting quality include incomplete reports, lack of essential information, lack of scienti c and rigorous methods, confusion in the grading of quality of evidence and recommended strength, lack of clarity in recommendations, and low attention to con icts of interest [12,[15][16][17]. Therefore, the reporting quality of the GPCs and expert consensus statement has become the major research issues [17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications among medical journal editors in China：a cross-sectional survey

Li,

Chen,

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous research has shown that the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements in China is suboptimal and uneven. However, little is known about the knowledge, attitudes, and practices(KAP)of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications. This study was intended to Investigate the KAP of medical journal editors, to identify the existing problems, and to explore possible solutions. Methods An observational study, using a cross-sectional survey, was distributed to medical journal editors in China, during April–July 2022. The study was collected using a self-designed questionnaire about the KAP of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications. The details about the participants as well as characteristics, knowledge, experiences, and attitudes were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Results A total of 362 participants completed the survey. The majority (71.5%) had high educational attainment. The level of KAP related to the report contents of CPGs and expert consensus statements among the participants was low and limited. Of all the participants, 59.4% responded they were strongly unfamiliar with the RIGHT statement, 49.5% responded they were strongly unfamiliar with AGREE Ⅱ. There was no significant difference between different gender, age, professional title and position (all p ＞0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the cognition of editors from different editorial departments and sponsors (all p ＞0.05). Medical journal editors thought that the main influencing factors of the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements were developing quality (90.6%), writing quality (85.9%), editing quality (75.4%) and reviewing quality (57.4%). Conclusions The KAP of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications in China are limited, low, and unsatisfactory, respectively at present. Factors influencing the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements were identified in the study. These findings help to develop strategies to improve the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements, and also provide evidence for the training of medical journal editors in the future.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications among medical journal editors in China：a cross-sectional survey

Li,

Chen,

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reporting checklists can assist in developing CPGs and also be used to evaluate the reporting quality of guidelines (8). The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist, which contains an elaboration statement with detailed information and examples, has been widely recognized as a standard for reporting criteria and is used to assess the reporting quality of CPGs for different diseases (9)(10)(11)(12). However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not been evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of AML have great value in clinical practice. However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not yet been evaluated. This is the first study aiming to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent AML CPGs published worldwide using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) to extract CPGs for AML published between January 2016 and December 2020. Websites for guideline development organizations and medical associations were also searched. Two independent researchers assessed compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 checklist items and summarized reporting rates for the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist.Results: We identified 16 guidelines, of which 3 (18.8%) were written in Chinese and 13 (81.3%) were written in English. The average overall reporting rate of the 16 guidelines was 52.9%, and only 7 CPGs (43.8%) had a reporting rate >50%. The average reporting rates of the 7 domains (basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding, declaration, and management of interests; and other information) were 79.2%, 62.5%, 38.8%, 53.6%, 21.9%, 32.8%, and 43.8%, respectively. For the 35 checklist items, the average reporting rate was 52.9%, and only 16 items had a reporting rate >50%, of which 5 items were reported by all the guidelines. There was 1 item which was not reported by any of the guidelines. Conclusions:The reporting quality of recently published AML guidelines remains poor. While the recommendations of CPGs have great value in clinical practice, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML still needs to be improved.

show abstract

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology

Sartori,

Mazzetti,

Júnior

et al. 2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia according to the RIGHT checklist: systematic review

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications among medical journal editors in China：a cross-sectional survey

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications among medical journal editors in China：a cross-sectional survey

Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About