Methodological and reporting quality of comprehensive hypertension guidelines published between 2017 and 2022.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10344577 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methodological and reporting quality of comprehensive hypertension guidelines published between 2017 and 2022.
Wang Zijun Z Lou Ying Y Liu Yunlan Y Zhao Junxian J Su Renfeng R Sun Yajia Y Liu Hui H Shi Qianling Q Cai Jun J Chen Yaolong Y
Chinese medical journal 20230526 14
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can provide systematically developed clinical recommendations to guide pediatric clinicians and patients making decisions. This study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE from 1 January 1990 to 2 April 2020 to identify pediatric CPGs published in the ten highest-impact pediatric journals and four highest-impact general medical journals. Two researchers evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health care (RIGHT) checklist. We calculated the mean AGREE II scores and compliance to RIGHT overall, and for each domain of the respective tools. We compared the methodological and reporting quality by different time periods and calculated the correlation between the AGREE II score and compliance to RIGHT.ResultsA total of 159 pediatric CPGs were identified. The mean (± standard deviation) scores for the six domains of the AGREE II instrument were as follows: scope and purpose 74.5%±14.2%, stakeholder involvement 42.7%±16.2%, rigour of development 18.7%±14.2%, clarity of presentation 56.5%±17.0%, applicability 8.9%±12.7% and editorial independence 25.2%±34.6%. The overall assessment score was 37.8%±12.4%. The mean compliance to RIGHT items in the seven domains of the checklist were: basic information 73.6%±14.9%, background 67.1%±16.4%, evidence 32.7%±27.2%, recommendations 32.4%±22.5%, review and quality assurance 22.9%±40.4%, funding and declaration and management of interests 24.1%±36.3%, and other information 45.3%±30.1%. The overall reporting rate for RIGHT was 46.4%±16.6%. Both the AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting rates increased over time. We found a high positive correlation between AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting compliance (r=0.645, P<0.001).DiscussionThe methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs have improved over time, but remain still suboptimal and needs to be further improved. An international database of pediatric guidelines is urgently needed to identify and promote high-quality guidelines and guide clinical practice in pediatrics.
| S-EPMC8421971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality.DesignDescriptive methodological quality review.Data sourceWe searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.Eligibility criteriaWe included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors.ResultsSeventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author's country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score.ConclusionsThe 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.
| S-EPMC10030738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIt is crucial to conduct systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to make causal references, in order to inform the clinical guidelines and decision-making. The high reporting quality of reviews through compliance with the guidelines Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) could promote the consistency and reproducibility across the published articles. The purpose of this meta-epidemiological study is to evaluate the reporting methodological quality of SRs on the association between sleep duration and hypertension.MethodsAn electronic search in an online database was performed to retrieve systematic reviews and meta-analyses published up to 31st December 2022. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two investigators. The reporting quality of each included article was measured with reference to the 27-item 2020 PRISMA checklist, and methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2. PRISMA evaluation was determined by total scores of individual SR and items scores and AMSTAR-2 assessment was also conducted using four categories.ResultsOf 2269 articles captured in the initial search, 15 SRs were included in the final analyses. All SRs had more than one incomplete PRISMA item. The mean of total scores was 20.5 (range 14-25), and the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment were critically low to low. The reporting quality of "rationale," "objectives," "selection process," "study selection," "discussion," and 'support' was fully reported. SRs that reported registration information and protocol had a higher PRISMA score than articles that reported certain deficiencies. From the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the methodological quality of these SRs and MAs was critically low to low. None of the included literature provided a list of excluded articles, and the report of the search strategy was incomplete; half of the SRs did not use appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in each included study.ConclusionsBoth the reporting and methodological quality of overall studies are less than ideal, with several key items being consistently under-reported. The quality measured by AMSTAR-2 is mainly consistent with the quality of reporting. Authors, reviewers, and journal editors should raise awareness and move forward to encourage completeness of SR reporting based on the results, which can aid in enhancing the quality of evidence.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42023459901.
| S-EPMC11302110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diabetes mellitus published in China over the period of January 2007 to April 2017.MethodsWe searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature database, VIP database and WanFang databases and guideline websites for CPGs for diabetes mellitus published between January 2007 and April 2017 in China. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data. We used the the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Canada) to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines, calculated the scores of each domain and evaluated the consistency among the assessors via use of the intragroup correlation coefficient. And then we compared the results with Chinese CPGs and international CPGs. We conducted a subgroup analysis based on different classification criteria and compared scores of each domain subgroup analyses.ResultsA total of 98 guidelines were identified. The correlation coefficient within the group was 0.93, suggesting that the consistency between the evaluators was good. The scores of the six domains of AGREE II were described in median (IQR) as follows: scope and purpose 53.7 (50.0-59.7), stakeholder involvement 31.5 (27.3-37.0), rigour of development 19.1 (15.3-22.2), clarity of presentation 59.3 (50.0-64.8), applicability 18.1 (13.9-25.7) and editorial independence 0.0 (0.0-0.0). The mean score in each domain of quality of Chinese diabetes CPGs was lower than that of CPGs published worldwide but higher than the mean score of Chinese guidelines of all topics. A funding source, the updated version, organisation and publishers of the guidelines and target fields are all the factors influencing the quality of CPGs to a certain degree.ConclusionsA large number of Chinese diabetes CPGs have been produced. Their quality remain unsatisfactorily low compared with CPGs worldwide, there is still room for improvement. Chinese guideline developers should pay more attention to the transparency of methodology, and use the AGREE II instrument to develop and report guidelines.
| S-EPMC6731825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the reporting quality of published randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols before and after the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement (2013), and any association with author, trial or journal factors.DesignMethodological study.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were electronically searched using optimised search strategies.Eligibility criteriaProtocols written for an RCT of living humans, published in full text in a peer-reviewed journal and published in the English language.Main outcomePrimary outcome was the overall proportion of checklist items which were adequately reported in RCT protocols published before and after the SPIRIT statement.Results300 RCT protocols were retrieved; 150 from the period immediately before the SPIRIT statement (9 July 2012 to 28 December 2012) and 150 from a recent period after the SPIRIT statement (25 January 2019 to 20 March 2019). 47.9% (95% CI, 46.5% to 49.3%) of checklist items were adequately reported in RCT protocols before the SPIRIT statement and 56.7% (95% CI, 54.9% to 58.5%) after the SPIRIT statement. This represents an 8.8% (95% CI, 6.6% to 11.1%; p<0.0001) mean improvement in the overall proportion of checklist items adequately reported since the SPIRIT statement. While 40% of individual checklist items had a significant improvement in adequate reporting after the SPIRIT statement, 11.3% had a significant deterioration and there were no RCT protocols in which all individual checklist items were complete. The factors associated with higher reporting quality of RCT protocols in multiple regression analysis were author expertise or experience in epidemiology or statistics, multicentre trials, longer protocol word length and publicly reported journal policy of compliance with the SPIRIT statement.ConclusionThe overall reporting quality of RCT protocols has significantly improved since the SPIRIT statement, although a substantial proportion of individual checklist items remain poorly reported. Continued and concerted efforts are required by journals, editors, reviewers and investigators to improve the completeness and transparency of RCT protocols.
| S-EPMC7451949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including "Instructions to Authors" from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n?=?165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research.
| S-EPMC3149080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAll randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are required to follow high methodological standards. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of published cardiovascular clinical research trials in a representative sample of RCTs published in 2017.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was used to identify cardiovascular clinical research trials with adult participants published in 2017. Overall, 250 (10%) RCTs were randomly selected from a total of 2,419 studies. Data on general trial characteristics were extracted and the risk of bias (RoB) was determined.ResultsOverall, 86% of RCTs have reported at least one statistically significant result, with the primary outcome significant in 69%, treatment favored in 55%, and adverse events reported in 68%. Less than one-third (29%) of trials were overall low RoB, while the other two-thirds were rated unclear (40%) or with high RoB (31%). Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting were the domains most often rated with high RoB. Drug trials were more likely to have low RoB than non-drug trials. Significant differences were found in RoB for the allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel between industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials, with industry-funded trials more often rated at low RoB.ConclusionAlmost two-thirds of RCTs in the field of cardiovascular disease (CVD) research, were at high or unclear RoB, indicating a need for more rigorous trial planning and conduct. Prospective trial registration is a factor predicting a lower risk of bias.
| S-EPMC8968023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWith significant shifts in the dietary recommendations between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines, such as promoting plant-based food intake, reducing highly processed food intake and advocating the practice of food skills, we compared their differences in guideline development methods.DesignTwo reviewers used twenty-five guided criteria to appraise the methods used to develop the most recent dietary guidelines against those outlined in the 2014 WHO Handbook for Guideline Development.SettingCanada.Participants2007 and 2019 dietary guidelines.ResultsWe found that the 2019 guidelines were more evidence-based and met 80 % (20/25) of the WHO criteria. For example, systematic reviews and health organisation authoritative reports, but not industry reports, constituted the evidence base for the dietary recommendations. However, recommendations on food sustainability and food skill practice were driven primarily by stakeholders' interests. By contrast, less information was recorded about the process used to develop the 2007 guidelines, resulting in 24 % (6/25) consistency with the WHO standards.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that a more transparent and evidence-based approach is used to develop the 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines and that method criteria should support further incorporation of nutrition priorities (food sustainability and food skills) in future dietary guideline development.
| S-EPMC10200617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition.Objectives(1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre-specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines.MethodsSearches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline-specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively.ResultsOf 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first-line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co-prescription of a non-antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects.ConclusionsSubstantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne.
| S-EPMC10395621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether North American guidelines published subsequent to and in the same topic areas as those developed by the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) meet the same methodological criteria. STUDY DESIGN:A guideline appraisal instrument containing 30 criteria was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the AHCPR guidelines, "updates" of the AHCPR guidelines authored by others, and guidelines that referenced or were adapted from the AHCPR guidelines. The frequency with which the criteria appeared in each guideline was compared and an analysis was performed to determine guidelines with two key features of the ACHPR guidelines-multidisciplinary guideline development panels and systematic reviews of the literature. Data were extracted from the guidelines by one investigator and then checked for accuracy by the other. RESULTS:Fifty two guidelines identified by broad based searches were evaluated. 50% of the criteria were present in every AHCPR guideline. The AHCPR guidelines scored 80% or more on 24 of the 30 criteria compared with 14 for the "updates" and 11 for those that referenced/adapted the AHCPR guidelines. All of the 17 AHCPR guidelines had both multidisciplinary development panels and systematic reviews of the literature compared with five from the other two categories (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:North American guidelines developed subsequent to and in the same topic areas as the AHCPR guidelines are of substantially worse methodological quality and ignore key features important to guideline development. This finding contrasts with previously published conclusions that guideline methodological quality is improving over time.
| S-EPMC1758044 | biostudies-literature