Dataset Information

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken to extract CPGs for TCM. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare) statement was used to calculate scores for the reporting quality in terms of domains and items, followed by a subgroup analysis of the results and determination of the correlation between the RIGHT and AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) scores.

Results

Overall, 539 TCM CPGs were included. (1) The mean scores (Med, IQR) for each RIGHT domain were as follows: basic information (4, 1), background (3, 2), evidence (0, 0), recommendations (2, 2), review and quality assurance (0, 0), funding and declaration and management of interests (0, 0.5), and other information (0, 0). (2) The items with a low reporting rate (<10%) included 2, 5, 8b, 9a, 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 14a, 14b, 14c, 16, 17, 19b, 20, 21, and 22, and those with a high reporting rate (> 90%) included 1a, 1b, 1c, 7b, 13a, and 13b. (3) In recent years, the reporting quality of TCM CPGs has improved, and there was a significant difference among the organizations (P = 0.000), where that of the updated versions was greater than that of the historical versions (P = 0.047). (4) The RIGHT and AGREE II scores were positively correlated (P = 0.014).

Conclusions

At present, although the reporting quality of TCM CPGs is improving, the overall quality remains suboptimal. Guideline developers should strictly follow the evidence-based process of developing guidelines and should follow the RIGHT statement to produce a standardized report when writing guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Yun X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6239316 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine.

Yun Xia X Yaolong Chen C Zhao Zeng Z Qi Zhou Z Yangyang Wang W Runshen Xie X Xiuli Xie X Hui Li L

PloS one 20181116 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was undertaken to extract CPGs for TCM. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare) statement was used to calculate scores for the reporting quality in terms of domains and items, followed by a subgroup analysis of the results and determination of the correlation between the RIGHT and AGREE II (Appraisal of Guid ...[more]

PMID: 30444924

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.MethodsThe national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014-2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n?=?24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF10) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.ResultsOverall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0-15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0-17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P?=?0.048; BF10?=?1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF10?=?80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF10?=?55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF10?=?16.90), primary intended users (BF10?=?8.70), and sources of funding (BF10?=?122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.ConclusionsImportant methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.

Project description:ObjectiveClinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.SettingSeven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.ParticipantsParticipants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.InterventionsThere were no limitations with regard to intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.ResultsTwelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (?>0.7).ConclusionsAppraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.

Project description:BackgroundThe Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was developed to improve the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). CPGs could provide the recommendations for key clinical issues with alternative care options and adherence to them could improve the outcomes. And, high reporting quality CPGs can assist health workers to incorporate the best evidence into the individual practice. There is no evaluation study on the reporting quality of CPGs in bladder cancer (BLCA). This study assessed the reporting quality of CPGs on BLCA and provided new insights for the development of CPGs in this disease.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in multiple literature databases, including PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) as well as the medical associations and websites of guideline development organizations. Relevant CPGs published between January 2017 and December 2021 were identified. Four trained investigators independently screened the extracted documents to include all eligible CPGs and evaluated whether the items in the RIGHT checklist were reported in each CPG. Subsequently, the reporting rate of each CPG and item, as well as the mean reporting rate of each domain in the RIGHT checklist was calculated.ResultsA total of 23 CPGs related to BLCA were finally included, of which, 22 guidelines were written in English and 1 was published in Chinese. The mean reporting rate of the included CPGs was approximately 65%. The reporting rates of the items in each RIGHT domain were 77% for basic information domain, 75% for recommendations domain, 72% for evidence domain, 69% for background domain, 43% for funding and declaration and management of interest domain, 35% for review and quality assurance domain, and 41% for other information domain. The reporting rate was determined as the mean value in Office Excel 2019.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of BLCA CPGs related to the domains of funding and declaration and management of interest domain, review and quality assurance domain, and other information domain is poor and warrants improvement in the future.

Dataset Information

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets