The reporting checklist for Chinese patent medicine guidelines: RIGHT for CPM

Existing reporting checklists lack the necessary level of detail and comprehensiveness to be used in guidelines on Chinese patent medicines (CPM). This study aims to develop a reporting guidance for CPM guidelines based on the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We extracted information from CPM guidelines, existing reporting standards for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and the RIGHT statement and its extensions to form the initial pool of reporting items for CPM guidelines. Seventeen experts from diverse disciplines participated in two rounds of Delphi process to refine and clarify the items. Finally, 18 authoritative consultants in the field of TCM and reporting guidelines reviewed and approved the RIGHT for CPM checklist. We added 16 new items and modified two items of the original RIGHT statement to form the RIGHT for CPM checklist, which contains 51 items grouped into seven sections and 23 topics. The new and revised items are distributed across four sections (Basic information, Background, Evidence, and Recommendations) and seven topics: title/subtitle (one new and one revised item), Registration information (one new item), Brief description of the health problem (four new items), Guideline development groups (one revised item), Health care questions (two new items), Recommendations (two new items), and Rationale/explanation for recommendations (six new items). The RIGHT for CPM checklist is committed to providing users with guidance for detailed, comprehensive and transparent reporting, and help practitioners better understand and implement CPM guidelines.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines in Japan remains low: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the characteristics, quality, and related factors of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study, we conducted a Google search for CPGs published by 30 Japanese medical societies that are the basis for training specialties between 2018 and 2019. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement to evaluate the quality.

RESULTS

We included 53 systematic review-based CPGs. The median score was 0.54 (IQR, 0.38-0.62) for Stakeholder involvement, 0.57 (IQR, 0.51-0.66) in Rigor of development, 0.33 (IQR 0.21-0.46) in Applicability, and 0.63 (IQR 0.46-0.73) in Editorial independence. The number of guideline developers/clinical question ratio (odds ratio [OR]: 4.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97, 8.70) and the adopted guideline development methods (OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 1.14, 12.0) were significantly related to the Rigor of development.

CONCLUSION

The quality of Japanese CPGs published in recent years remains low. Our study suggests that increasing contributors and adopting the latest guideline development methods at the beginning of the project may improve the quality of the Japanese CPGs.