Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding Gout and Hyperuricemia According to the Right Checklist

Abstract Objectives 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 Wan Fang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for relevant guidelines. 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 Medlive and 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% 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.

Download Full-text

Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding Gout and Hyperuricemia According to the RIGHT checklist: Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-107411/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Can Wang ◽

Xufei Luo ◽

Maichao Li ◽

Lingling Cui ◽

Xinde Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Guideline Development ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Reporting Rate ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

The Right

Abstract 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 Wan Fang 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 Medlive and 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% 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.

Download Full-text

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

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01645-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Can Wang ◽

Xufei Luo ◽

Maichao Li ◽

Lingling Cui ◽

Xinde Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Guideline Development ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Reporting Rate ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

The Right

Abstract 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.

Download Full-text

Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01805-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Shuya Lu ◽

Xufei Luo ◽

Xiaojia Ni ◽

Haoxuan Li ◽

Miaomiao Meng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Guideline Development ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Reporting Rate ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

The Right

Abstract Objectives To analyze the effectiveness and quality of stroke clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years in order to guide future guideline developers to develop better guidelines. Participants No patient involved Method PubMed, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wanfang, CNKI, and CPG-relevant websites were searched from January 2015 to December 2019 by two researchers independently. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality in terms of domains and items. Then, a subgroup analysis of the results was performed. Primary and secondary outcome measures RIGHT checklist reporting rate Results A total of 66 CPGs were included. Twice as many CPGs were published internationally as were published in China. More than half were updated. Most CPGs are published in journals, developed by societies or associations, and were evidence-based grading. The average reporting rate for all included CPGs was 47.6%. Basic information got the highest (71.7% ± 19.7%) reporting rate, while review and quality assurance got the lowest (22.0% ± 24.6%). Then, a cluster analysis between countries, publishing channels, and institutions was performed. There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting quality on the CPGs between publishing countries (China vs. international), publishing channels (journals vs. websites), and institutions (associations vs. non-associations). Conclusions Current stroke CPGs reports are of low quality. We recommend that guideline developers improve the quality of reporting of key information and improve the management of conflicts of interest. We recommend that guideline developers consider the RIGHT checklist as an important tool for guideline development. Trial registration 10.17605/OSF.IO/PBWUX.

Download Full-text

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0207580 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 13 (11) ◽

pp. e0207580 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Xia Yun ◽

Chen Yaolong ◽

Zeng Zhao ◽

Zhou Qi ◽

Wang Yangyang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Chinese Medicine ◽

Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

The Right

Download Full-text

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

Annals of Translational Medicine ◽

10.21037/atm-21-2956 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

pp. 0-0

Author(s):

Kefeng Liu ◽

Yanfang Ma ◽

Yongjie Yang ◽

Jingli Lu ◽

Jie Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

The Right

Download Full-text

Using AGREE II Reporting Checklist to Evaluate the Quality of Tuina Clinical Practice Guidelines

10.21203/rs.3.rs-816522/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Fan Huang ◽

Yue Zhang ◽

Chuyu Huang ◽

Mingwang Qiu ◽

Siyi Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Guideline Development ◽

Search Time ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Quality Of Reporting

Abstract Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines. Methods Computer searches of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases were conducted to search for published guidelines on Tuina, with a search time frame from database creation to March 2021. Four evaluators independently used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines.Results Eight guidelines related to Tuina were included in this study. The quality of reporting was low in all included guidelines. The highest quality report had a total score of 404 and was rated as "highly recommended". The worst guideline had a final score of 241 and was rated as "not recommended". Overall, 25% of the included guidelines were recommended for clinical use, 37.5% were recommended after revision, and 37.5% were not recommended for use.Conclusion The number of existing Tuina clinical practice guidelines is limited. The methodological quality is low, far from the internationally accepted norms of clinical practice guideline development and reporting. In the future development of Tuina guidelines, emphasis should be placed on the reporting specifications of guidelines and the methodology of guideline development, including the rigor of the guideline development process, the clarity, application, and independence of reporting, to improve the quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, to guide and standardize the clinical practice of Tuina.

Download Full-text