Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for assisted reproductive technology using the RIGHT checklist: A cross-sectional study

Copublication promotes dissemination hypertension guidelines: a retrospective cohort study

To evaluate the impact of copublication on hypertension-related clinical practice guidelines' citation, we searched the Web of Science Core Collection and guide.medlive.cn until 31 December 2017 using the terms "hypertension" and "guideline". The copublished group was matched with the noncopublished group at a 1:2 ratio. Primary outcomes were total citations and citations within the first five years after publication. Secondary outcomes included the adjusted impact factor ratio (excluding copublished guidelines) to the actual impact factor of the journal. Altmetric scores were compared using Altmetric explorer data. 21 copublished and 42 noncopublished guidelines were included. The copublished group had higher median current total citations [387.0 (90.0, 1806.0) vs 70.5 (23.25, 158.25)], and higher median citations at one, two, three, four, and five years [7.0 (0.5, 58.5) vs 1.0 (0.0, 5.5), 33.0 (14.0, 142.0) vs 5.5 (1.75, 26.25), 46.0 (24.5, 216.0) vs 10.5 (3, 25.75), 50.0 (19.0, 229.0) vs 9.0 (3.0, 19.0), 52.0 (13.5, 147.0) vs 7.0 (2.0, 20.0), all p < 0.05]. The adjusted IF analysis showed that if they had not copublished the guidelines, 10 of 24 and 11 of 24 journals would have had a lower IF in the first and second years. Median altmetric scores were significantly higher for copublished guidelines [38.5 (9.5, 90.5) vs 3.5 (1.0, 9.0)] (p < 0.05). Copublication is associated with a higher citation frequency of hypertension guidelines and may increase the journal IF. Positive impacts extend beyond academia, benefiting society through broader guideline application and dissemination. This facilitates broader application of guidelines and promotes their dissemination. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate how copublication promotes the dissemination of hypertension guidelines.

Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs (PAGE): Recommendations from editors and reviewers

Transparency Ecosystem for Research and Journals in Medicine (TERM) working group summarized the essential recommendations that should be considered to review and publish a high-quality guideline. These recommendations from editors and reviewers included 10 components of essential requirements: systematic review of existing relevant guidelines, guideline registration, guideline protocol, stakeholders, conflicts of interest, clinical questions, systematic reviews, recommendation consensus, guideline reporting and external review. TERM working group abbreviates them as PAGE (essential requirements for Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs), and recommends guideline authors, editors, and peer reviewers to use them for high-quality guidelines.

Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs (PAGE): Recommendations from editors and reviewers

Transparency Ecosystem for Research and Journals in Medicine (TERM) Working Group summarized the essential recommendations that should be considered to review and publish a high-quality guideline. These recommendations from editors and reviewers included the ten components of essential requirements: systematic review of existing relevant guidelines, guideline registration, guideline protocol, stakeholders, conflicts of interest, clinical questions, systematic reviews, recommendation consensus, guideline reporting, and external review. TERM Working Group abbreviates them as PAGE (essential requirements for Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs), recommends guideline authors, editors, and peer reviewers use them for high-quality guidelines.

The development of clinical guidelines in China: insights from a national survey

Background

Previous research suggests that the quality of clinical guidelines (CGs) in China is suboptimal. However, little is known about the methodology that CGs follow. We conducted a national survey of methods used by Chinese CG developers for CG development, adaptation, and updating.

Methods

We used a previously piloted questionnaire based on methodologies of CG development, adaptation, and updating, which was distributed during September–November 2020 to 114 organizations identified from published Chinese CGs (searched 2017–2020), recommended by Chinese CG developers, and recommended by clinical discipline experts.

Results

We collected 48 completed questionnaires (42.1% response). Most organizations developed CGs based on scientific evidence (89.6%), existing CGs (75%), or expert experience and opinion (64.6%). Only a few organizations had a specific CG development division (6.3%), a CG monitoring plan (on clinicians 33.3%; on patients 18.8%), funding (33.3%), or a conflict-of-interest (COI) management policy (23.4%). Thirty (62.5%) organizations reported using a CG development methodology handbook, from international organizations (14/30, 46.7%), methodology or evaluation resources (3/30, 10.0%), expert experience and opinion (3/30, 10.0%), or in-house handbooks (3/30, 10.0%). One organization followed a published adaptation methodology. Thirty-eight organizations (88.4%) reported de novo CG development: 21 (55.3%) formed a CG working group, and 29 (76.3%) evaluated the quality of evidence (21 [72.4%] using a methodological tool). Nineteen organizations (52.8%) reported CG adaptation: three (31.6%) had an adaptation working group, and 12 (63.2%) evaluated the quality of source CGs (2 (16.7%) using the AGREE II instrument). Thirty-three organizations (68.8%) updated their CGs, seven (17.5%) using a formal updating process.

Conclusions

Our study describes how CGs are developed in a middle-income country like China. To ensure better healthcare, there is still an important need for improvement in the development, adaptation, and updating of CG in China.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00799-7.

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

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.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on melanoma using the RIGHT checklist

Background

The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) instrument was launched in 2016 to improve the reporting of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on melanoma using RIGHT.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases and medical society websites until November 2020 to identify guidelines for melanoma published since 2018. The reporting quality of included guidelines was assessed by calculating the percentages of the 35 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported. We stratified the results by selected characteristics to describe the correlation of these factors with reporting quality.

Results

A total of 20 guidelines were identified and analyzed. The mean reporting rate was greater than 50% in five of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist; the remaining two domains (Other information, Review and quality assurance) both had a mean reporting rate of 35.0%. The mean overall reporting rate was 63.7%. No CPG considered equity, feasibility or acceptability of the recommendations (item 14c), and only one CPG described the role of funders (item 18b). Guidelines that reported funding or were published in higher-impact journals tended to have a higher reporting quality, whereas the reporting rate in the one included Chinese-language CPG was low.

Conclusions

Reporting quality of melanoma CPGs tends to be relatively good. The CPGs developed in China were however an exception. The use of the 2016 RIGHT tool in guideline development should be encouraged to support rigorous and transparent reporting.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on lung cancer using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument.

METHODS

We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants.

RESULTS

A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common type of cancer globally. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of gastric cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), China Biology Medicine, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang databases and the websites of the main guideline development organizations from 2018 to 2020 for guidelines on gastric cancer. Data were extracted and the reporting quality evaluated by two researchers independently using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. We assessed the compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 items of RIGHT and summarized the reporting proportions of the seven domains of RIGHT.

Results

Eighteen guidelines were included. The mean proportion of appropriately reported RIGHT items was 52.4%. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, Basic information had the highest reporting rate (78.7%), and Review and quality assurance domain the lowest rate (16.7%). The domains Evidence (40.0%), Funding and declaration and management of interests (43.1%), and Other information (31.5%) had also reporting rates below 50%. Two RIGHT items (17 and 19b) were not reported by any of the guidelines.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of gastric cancer guidelines published in the years 2018-2020 was suboptimal, especially regarding the reporting of review, quality assurance and evidence. Guideline developers should pay attention on rigorous reporting following international standard to improve the quality of guidelines.

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009-2019 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wanfang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%); only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (basic information, background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests, and other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.

How about the quality and recommendation on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV/AIDS guidelines developed by WHO: A protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) has become a pandemic that has infected millions of people around the world and brings a tremendous economic burden. There are numerous guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV/AIDS published in recent years, but the quality of these guidelines is still unknown. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the quality of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV/AIDS published by World Health Organization (WHO) as well as perform a comparison of recommendations between those guidelines. And we also hope our finding could provide suggestions to enhance the quality of future guidelines in this area.

METHODS

We obtained guidelines from WHO Guidelines approved by the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC). Two reviewers will independently select eligible guidelines. The quality of included guidelines will be appraised by at least four reviewers through AGREE II and RIGHT tools. The results will be checked for discrepancies. Differences between them than two reviewers will be considered as discrepant and the final discrepancies will be resolved by consensus. The results will be presented in tables and the descriptive statistics will be calculated for all domains of the AGREE II instrument as standard score and median (range) as the reporting quality result of eligible guidelines will also be evaluated through RIGHT criteria. In this study, we will also compare the differences and similarities of recommendations among different guidelines.

RESULTS

The results of this study will increase the knowledge about the development of recommendations guidelines for HIV/AIDS of high methodological rigor and reporting quality. This study may also identify potential limitations for future research in this area.

CONCLUSION

This study may guide health professionals, policy makers, and health policy managers in choosing the guidelines for recommendation to better to achieve the 90-90-90 targets.

INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2020110010.

What factors affect the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis? Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a disease with a high prevalence and low treatment rate, which poses a serious threat to the lives of patients and brings a heavy economic burden. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide vital guidance for disease management. Up to now, different countries, regions, and organizations have issued a certain number of CPGs for osteoporosis, but the recommendations in different guidelines are inconsistent. This protocol plans to evaluate the quality of the CPGs for osteoporosis and then make a comparative analysis of the recommendations in the CPGs.

METHODS

Several databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, as well as the official website of relevant organizations will be searched. Screen and data extraction will be performed by two reviewers independently, and the third reviewer help to resolve the divergence between them. Using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the CPGs. The extracted recommendations, including but not limited to screening, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment, will be summarized and analyzed, and the results will be presented in tabular form. Bubble charts will be used to show quality differences between CPGs and to describe the correlation between methodological and reporting quality through regression analysis. Excel, EndnoteX9 and SPSS 25.0 will be used.

RESULT

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the existing CPGs of osteoporosis and analyze the similarities and differences between the recommendations, the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide systematic evidence for existing CPGs of osteoporosis and to provide a reference for CPGs users.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

INPLASY 202070031.

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

Aim:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines.

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE, and guideline-related websites were searched from 2008 to 2019. The CKD guidelines were included. Two reviewers used the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist to assess the quality of guidelines and calculate the reporting proportion of each guideline.

Results:

We included 13 guidelines, of which 30.8% (4/13) were developed in Europe and about two-thirds (8/13) were published on their own website. The average quality of the 13 guidelines was 68.57%. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding and declaration and management of interests; other information) were 65.39%, 81.73%, 63.08%, 69.23%, 53.85%, 63.46%, and 61.54%, respectively.

Conclusion:

CKD guidelines had moderate reporting quality in some domains, but guideline developers should increase the reporting items in basic information, guideline evidence, and recommendations. The RIGHT checklist would be a useful tool to improve the reporting quality of guidelines.