邮件订阅 RSS

2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南文献调查与评价——制订人员及工作组情况

Investigation and Evaluation of Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines Published in Medical Journals in 2019:Status of the Authorship and Guideline Development Group

    摘要
  • 摘要:
      目的  调查2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南基本情况、制订人员及工作组构成现状，以期为合理组建我国指南制订工作组提供参考。
      方法  系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库和PubMed 4个数据库，并补充检索中华医学期刊全文数据库、香港期刊在线、港澳期刊网、澳门期刊论文索引和台湾期刊论文索引系统，检索时间为2019年1月1日—2019年12月31日。经筛选后，对纳入指南的基本信息和制订人员数量、分组、单位、专业及学科等方面信息进行提取、统计分析。
      结果  2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南共226篇，中、英文语种比例约为4∶1，70% 以上的指南由学会和协会主导制订。每篇指南的制订人员中位数为38(22，54)人。指南制订工作组的名称共194种，其主要名称为“专家组”(43/187，23.0%)，但缺少对其具体职责和分工的明确定义与解释。报告制订人员专业的指南占比35.4%(80/226)，多数指南制订人员专业单一(49/80，61.3%)，且多为临床专业(72/80，90.0%)的单一学科(46/72，63.8%)，仅6篇指南有循证医学方法学家参与制订。制订人员单位以医院为主(6073/6637，91.5%)，其中北京、上海、广州地区的医院占比为27.3%。
      结论  2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南在制订人员数量、职责、组别方面存在明显差异性、不规范性，以及报告的不充分性。建议未来我国指南制订人员应遵循指南制订的方法学要求，成立人数合理、分工明确、具有多学科和地域代表性的工作组，并在撰写指南时，进行充分的报告和说明。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  The aim of this study was to investigate the basic information authorship and guideline development group of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in medical journals in 2019, so as to provide reference for the establishment of the Chinese guideline working group in the future.
      Methods  We searched and collected Chinese guidelines published in 2019 from four electronic databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data Knowledge Service Platform, SinoMed, and PubMed. Chinese Medical Journal Network, Hong Kong Journals Online, Hong Kong Macau Periodicals Network, UM Digital Library Portal, and Taiwan Scholar Journal Database were also searched as supplements. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently screened guidelines by reading titles, abstracts, and full-texts. We extracted the basic information and information on the number, group, affiliation, specialty and discipline of guideline developers, and then made descriptive statistics.
      Results  Totally 226 qualified guidelines were included.The proportion of Chinese version vs. English version was 4∶1, more than 70% of guidelines were guided by societies and associations. The median number of guideline authors was 38(22, 54).A total of 194 kind of groups were found in the 226 guidelines, "expert group" was the most common name, but there is a lack of definition and explanation of their specific responsibilities and work. 35.4%(80/226) guidelines reported the specialty of developers, most of the guideline developers were from a single specialty (49/80, 61.3%) like clinical specialty (72/80, 90.0%) and with a single discipline (46/72, 63.8%).Only six guidelines were involved evidence-based medicine methodologists. Hospitals were the main working units (6073/6637, 91.5%) of guideline developers, among which hospitals in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou accounted for 27.3%.
      Conclusions  In the Chinese guidelines of 2019, there are important discrepancies, irregularity, and inadequate reports on authors' number, responsibility and grouping. We suggest that guideline developers not only attach importance to the methodology, and establish a guideline-development group with multidisciplinary and geographical representation and an appropriate size, but also give clear introductions and explanations when writing the guideline in the future.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(24)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回