邮件订阅 RSS

中国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量分析

Reporting Quality of Literature Interpreting Clinical Practice Guidelines/Consensus: A Cross-sectional Study

    摘要
  • 摘要:
      目的  调查中国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量现状。
      方法  系统检索万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文期刊服务平台和中国知网3个中文数据库，对国内临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量进行分析，从文献标题、摘要、背景、指南制订方法、指南推荐意见、优势与局限性、对当地指南制订与临床研究的意义、传播与实施8个方面分析解读类文献报告内容，检索时限从建库至2018年3月28日。
      结果  共纳入临床实践指南/共识解读类文献1593篇，其中6篇(0.4%)文献报告了指南制订专家或循证医学方法学家参与解读，17篇(1.1%)报告了解读者的方法学背景，6篇(0.4%)联系了原指南/共识制订者辅助解读，13篇(0.8%)报告了原指南/共识的使用环境，在制订小组的组建(65篇，4.1%)、临床问题的确定(20篇，1.3%)、收集证据的方法(72篇，4.5%)、推荐意见达成共识的方法(53篇，3.3%)、资金资助来源(30篇，1.9%)、利益冲突(3篇，0.2%)等方面报告较少；在解读类文献研究意义方面，106篇(6.7%)报告了对未来研究的启示，296篇(16.9%)报告了对我国临床实践的意义。
      结论  目前我国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献数量较多，但整体报告质量有待提高，主要表现为关键信息解读不全面、缺少方法学家的参与、对利益冲突的关注度不高等；建议未来研究者开发指南/共识解读类文献报告规范，提高其报告质量，促进指南/共识的传播与实施。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To investigate and analyze the status of the reporting quality of Chinese literature interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensus.
      Methods  Based on electronic databases of Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from their inception to March 28, 2018, we analyzed the reporting quality of Chinese literature interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensus including basic information, title, abstract, background, method of guideline development, recommendation, strengths, limitations, dissemination and implementation, and implications for local guideline development and clinical research.
      Results  A total of 1593 articles interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensuses were included in our study. Only 6 articles (0.4%) reported the participation of experts of guideline development or evidence-based methodology; 17 articles (1.1%) reported the methodological background of interpreters; 6 articles (0.4%) contacted with the authors of the guideline/consensus; 13 articles (0.8%) reported the background of the usage environment of the guideline/consensus. Fewer articles reported the establish of guideline development group (65, 4.1%), the identification of clinical questions (20, 1.3%), the method of collecting evidence (72, 4.5%), the method of reaching consensus (53, 3.3%), the resources of funding (30, 1.9%), and the conflict of interest (3, 0.2%). In terms of significance and value of interpreting literature, 106 articles (6.7%) reported implications for future research; 296 articles (16.9%) reported the significance for clinical practice in China.
      Conclusions  At present, although there is a large volume of literature interpreting guidelines/consensus in China, the overall reporting situation is not optimistic, which is reflected from incomplete interpretation of key information, lack of methodologists, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest. We suggest that future researchers should develop regulations on interpretation of guidelines/consensus to improve the reporting quality and promote the dissemination and implementation of guidelines.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(29)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回