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

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.

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

2020 ◽  
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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Clinical Practice Guidelines andHelicobacter pyloriInfection in Children

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 560-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macarthur ◽  
Liisa Jaakkimainen
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Guideline Implementation ◽  
Key Steps ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines ◽  
Care Costs

The objective of this paper is to review the principles, methods and issues behind the development of clinical practice guidelines. Practice guidelines have been defined as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances”. The ultimate goal of guidelines is to improve patient outcomes; however, they may also be used as tools to decrease health care costs, improve medical education and enhance quality assurance. Evidence-based guidelines use explicit methods to link recommendations to the quality of the underlying research. Following development of the guideline, implementation and evaluation are key steps. The ultimate aim of guideline development is to influence physician knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. e0181927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Ross ◽  
Justin Rankin ◽  
Jason Beaman ◽  
Kelly Murray ◽  
Philip Sinnett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Opioid Use

scholarly journals Assessment of the methodological quality of local clinical practice guidelines on the identification and management of gestational diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e027285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Daley ◽  
Graham Hitman ◽  
Norman Fenton ◽  
Scott McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Agree Ii

ObjectiveGestational diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, and it is important that well-written clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the methodological quality of hospital-based CPGs on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.DesignWe conducted an assessment of local clinical guidelines in English for gestational diabetes using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) to assess and validate methodological quality.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe sought a representative selection of local CPGs accessible by the internet. Criteria for inclusion were (1) identified as a guideline, (2) written in English, (3) produced by or for the hospital in a Western country, (4) included diagnostic criteria and recommendations concerning gestational diabetes, (5) grounded on evidence-based medicine and (6) accessible over the internet. No more than two CPGs were selected from any single country.ResultsOf the 56 CPGs identified, 7 were evaluated in detail by five reviewers using the standard AGREE II instrument. Interrater variance was calculated, with strong agreement observed for those protocols considered by reviewers as the highest and lowest scoring based on the instrument. CPG results for each of the six AGREE II domains are presented categorically using a 5-point Likert scale. Only one CPG scored above average in five or more of the domains. Overall scores ranged from 91.6 (the strongest) to 50 (the weakest). Significant variation existed in the methodological quality of CPGs, even though they followed the guideline of an advising body. Specifically, appropriate identification of the evidence relied on to inform clinical decision making in CPGs was poor, as was evidence of user involvement in the development of the guideline, resource implications, documentation of competing interests of the guideline development group and evidence of external review.ConclusionsThe limitations described are important considerations for updating current and new CPGs.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for genetic testing in children

Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (52) ◽  
pp. e18521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue-Feng Jiao ◽  
Hai-Long Li ◽  
Liang Cheng ◽  
Chuan Zhang ◽  
Chun-Song Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document