Journal Article

Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 4: The reporting and methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published between 2014 and 2018: A systematic review

Zhou, Qi, Yao, Liang, Chen, Yaolong, Zhang, Hairong, Yang, Kehu, Zhao, Siya, Liu, Xiao, Xun, Yangqin, Wang, Xiaoqin, Shi, Qianling, Li, Qinyuan, Wang, Qi, Liu, Hui, Wang, Zijun, Estill, Janne

2021

Overview

This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018. We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding. Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

• Publisher: Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
• Subject: AGREE II / China / Clinical medicine / Clinical practice guideline / Clinical practice guidelines / Domains / Epidemiology / Funding / Guidelines / Humans / Internal Medicine / Medicine / Methodological quality / Periodicals as Topic - standards / Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards / Quality assurance / Reporting quality / RIGHT / Search strategies / Software / Subgroups / Systematic review