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

  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.