Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in medical journals in 2019, so as to understand their current quality and provide suggestions for the improvement of guideline development.
Methods We used the AGREE Ⅱ tool and the RIGHT checkilist to assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines respectively. The average score or average reporting rate was calculated for each domain and the overall. We used 60% as the qualified threshold.
Results A total of 226 guidelines meeting the criteria were included. The average score of AGREE Ⅱ was 22.3%, and the scores of six domains were as follows: 37.9% (scope and purpose), 23.2% (stakeholder involvement), 14.9% (rigour of development), 39.1% (clarity of presentation), 14.6% (applicability), and 22.5%(editorial independence). The average reporting rate of RIGHT was 33.9%, and the reporting rates of seven domains were as follows: 59.2% (basic information), 51.9% (background), 10.8% (evidence), 31.5% (recommendation), 4.4% (review and quality assurance), 22.3%(funding and declaration and management of interests), and 14.5% (other information). Compared to unregistered guidelines, 12 registered guidelines had a 24.3% higher mean score (48.3% vs. 24.0%) in AGREE Ⅱ and a 21.2% higher mean reporting rate (54.0% vs. 32.8%) in RIGHT.
Conclusions The overall methodological and reporting quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in medical journals in 2019 were relatively low. Registered guidelines had higher overall scores than unregistered guidelines.
邮件订阅
RSS
下载: