ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of guidelines for pharmacological intervention of migraine in adults, to compare and analyze the differences in first-line drug recommendations in different regions and quality levels, so as to explore the evidence of drug recommendations, and provide a basis for clinical decision-making.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data databases, Up To Date, as well as the related books, Yimaitong, Guideline Central, Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched to collect pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults from inception to January 12th, 2020. The methodological quality of the guidelines was evaluated by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ).ResultsA total of 25 guidelines were included (including 22 evidence-based guidelines), covering 10 countries on 4 continents and World Health Organization (WHO) with a time span of 1997 to 2019. According to AGREE Ⅱ, 5 were A-level guidelines, 18 were B-level guidelines, and 2 were C-level guidelines. Scope and purpose, rigour of development, clarity of presentations and editorial independence obtained high average scores (more than 60%) among all 25 guidelines. The average scores of guidelines in different domains of AGREE Ⅱ varied with regions and countries. Triptans and NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended as first-line drugs for the acute management; beta-blockers and antiepileptic drugs were recommended for the first-line prevention drugs of migraine in adults. There were 2 guidelines that recommended complementary treatments, one recommended traditional Chinese medicine and another recommended herbal butterbur.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the pharmacological intervention guidelines of migraine in adults is suboptimal among different regions or countries. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. The consistency of first-line drug recommendations is strong, but there are still regional differences. The therapeutic effect of traditional Chinese medicine requires further verification.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Chinese rehabilitation medicine.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and Medlive databases were electronically searched to collect CPGs of Chinese rehabilitation medicine from January 1979 to May 2018. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs by AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 11 CPGs were included, which involved 5 CPGs on nervous system rehabilitation, 1 CPG on bone and joint system rehabilitation, 1 CPG each on pediatric rehabilitation, internal medicine system rehabilitation, burn rehabilitation, earthquake rehabilitation and rehabilitation diagnosis and treatment criteria respectively. The results of AGREE Ⅱ score showed that the average scores on six domains were 65.3%, 28.0%, 9.3%, 42.1%, 6.3% and 4.0%. There were not any level A (recommended) guidelines. Two guidelines were level B (recommended after being revised). The other nine guidelines were level C (not recommended).ConclusionsThere are a few rehabilitation CPGs in China and the quality of methodology is low. AGREE's methods and concepts have not been fully used for formulation. The rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of guidelines should be emphasized, so as to produce high level CPGs and improve clinical practice quality in rehabilitation medicine.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality, status of clinical practice guidelines on stomatology in China and discuss existing problems, so as to provide references for developing evidence-based guidelines. MethodsComprehensive search was conducted up to January 2014 for relevant clinical practice guidelines on stomatology, and the retrieval date was January 30th, 2014. After data extraction from eligibility guidelines, the quality was evaluated using the AGREE Ⅱ instrument and then descriptive analysis was performed. ResultsFinally a total of 18 guidelines were included, of which, 13 were for oral and maxillofacial surgery diseases. Based on the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, the average scores on the six domains were as follows:71.1% for scope and purpose, 40.1% for stakeholder involvement, 28.8% for rigor of development, 71.5% for clarity of presentation, 42.6% for applicability, and 8.6% for editorial independence. ConclusionThe overall quality of clinical practice guidelines on stomatology in China is relatively poor, only a few diseases are concerned, and no evidence-based guideline has been developed so far. However, considered the limitations of this study, the results of this study is only for a reference.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of Chinese guidelines of newborns so as to provide references for the formulation of relevant guidelines for newborns in the future.MethodsCBM, VIP, WanFang Data, CNKI and Medlive databases were systematically searched to collect clinical practice guidelines in neonatal field in China from January 1st, 2000 to June 28th, 2020. Four researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, used AGREEⅡ to evaluate the methodological quality of the guidelines, used RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of the guidelines, and analyzed the score and reporting rate of items in each field.ResultsA total of 35 guidelines were included, and the quantity of publications increased annually. The AGREEⅡ score showed that guidelines published after 2017 were rated higher in all areas than that prior to 2017, with clarity scoring highest (82.9%) and editorial independence scoring lowest (15.4%). The RIGHT score showed that guidelines published after 2017 had higher reporting rates in most areas than that prior to 2017. The highest proportion of reported areas was basic information (75.6% vs. 65.0%). Areas with the lowest reporting ratios in the guidelines prior to 2017 were review and quality assurance (0%), while after 2017 were other areas (4.4%).ConclusionsNeonatal guidelines in China have developed rapidly and the quality of the guideline still requires improvement.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of pediatric COVID-19 guidelines using the AGREE Ⅱ. Methods Domestic and foreign pediatric COVID-19 guidelines from inception to 1st Oct 2021 were electronically searched in PubMed, CBM, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, Medlive, NGC, GIN, and NICE databases and relevant websites. Two researchers independently assessed the methodological quality of the guidelines by using AGREE Ⅱ. Results A total of 21 guidelines were included. The AGREE Ⅱ results revealed that the average scores of included guidelines in 6 domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence) were 62.70%, 36.24%, 20.34%, 50.42%, 22.12% and 53.17%, respectively. ConclusionThe methodological quality of pediatric COVID-19 guidelines is poor. Guideline developers should follow the requirements of AGREE Ⅱ in guideline development.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were electronically searched and major guideline websites such as GIN, NICE, NGC and Yimaitong were also searched to collect guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II and RIGHT instruments.ResultsA total of 26 esophageal cancer guidelines and consensus were included. The mean scores for each domain of AGREE II was 49.63% for scope and purpose, 25.16% for stakeholder involvement, 23.42% for rigor of development, 49.25% for clarity of presentation, 16.91% for applicability, and 21.07% for editorial independence. The item with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items was 5 (84.62%), followed by 1a (80.77%), 1c (65.38%), 13a (65.38%), and 4 (61.54%), and the remaining items were all reported below 50%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the guidelines and consensus developed based on the evidence-based medicine method had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE II and the RIGHT score than the guidelines and consensus developed based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the three domains of AGREE II (formulation rigor, clarity, editorial independence) and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on esophageal cancer is low, with the guidelines and consensus in China even lower, requiring further improvement. It is suggested that the guideline developers should refer to the standards such as AGREE II and RIGHT to develop high-quality guidelines and promote their application, so as to better guide the standardized diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer.
ObjectiveTo review guidelines on diet intervention for hypertension, compare the similarities/differences and the regularity of the guidelines, discuss the prevention and treatment effects of diet intervention for hypertension, promote the understanding of the guide, and to explore the best method of diet intervention for hypertension. MethodsDatabase such as CNKI, EMbase, PubMed, etc., as well as guideline websites were searched from inception to February 28th, 2014, for collecting guidelines on diet intervention in the prevention and treatment of hypertension. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅱ) were applied to assess methodological quality of the guidelines. Characteristics of diets recommended by the guidelines were analyzed through comparing the different regions and quality levels of the guidelines. ResultsA total of 27 guidelines on diet intervention for hypertension were included. They were formulated by 5 continents, 9 countries, 2 regions (Taiwan of China and Europe), and 1 international organization (WHO). According to the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, 13 guidelines were graded as Level A (recommendation) and 14 were graded as Level B (recommended after changes), respectively. The domains were more than 60% except for "rigor of development" (57.89±7.71)% and "applicability" (58.39±6.29)%. Each guideline recommended low sodium diet (usually:5 to 6 g/d; Oceania:4 g/d; North America:the amount of sodium intake should be decreased as age increases). The amount of alcohol intake was generally 30 mL/d for men and 20 mL/d for women. All included guidelines recommended to increase the intake of fruits, vegetables, and potassium. ConclusionCurrently, more than half of diet intervention recommendations for hypertension in different countries and regions are still needs to be improved and modified. Diet recommendations differ in regions, gender, and age.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines and consensus of lupus nephritis, to collect the recommendations of each guideline, and to provide references for clinical decision-making. Methods PubMed, CNKI, and CBM databases and related websites such as NGC, NICE, GIN, SIGN, and Medive were electronically searched from January 2012 to December 2020 to collect the clinical guidelines and expert consensus for lupus nephritis. After consistency evaluation by four evaluators, the methodological quality of the included guidelines or expert consensus was evaluated using AGREE Ⅱ. The relevant recommendations, evidence level, and recommended strength of each guideline in treating lupus nephritis were summarized. Results A total of eight guidelines and two consensus statements were included. Among them, eight guidelines or consensus statements were level B (generally recommended guidelines), and two were level C (non-recommended guidelines). Relevant recommendations mainly gave the corresponding treatment scheme according to the pathological type of lupus nephritis. Conclusion The methodological quality of lupus nephritis guideline formulation in China needs to be improved. The included guidelines and consensus can provide reference for clinical decision-makers. However, higher-quality clinical practice guidelines for the Chinese population are needed to be developed in the future.
ObjectivesTo investigate the current situation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of gastric cancer in China, and to assess the quality of these CPGs, so as to provide reference for developing the CPGs of gastric cancer normatively in the future.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect the CPGs of gastric cancer in China from inception to January 31st, 2018. Four reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of these CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ).ResultsA total of 12 guidelines published from 2007 to 2017 were included. Only 1 guideline was evidence-based guideline. The average scores of guidelines in six domains of AGREE Ⅱ were 83.3%, 42.2%, 16.3%, 80.2%, 37.3% and 0% respectively.ConclusionsThe overall quality of included CPGs is insufficient. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines in China. More attention should be paid to rigor of development and applicability during the development of CPGs in the future, and a timely upgrade is also required.
Objective To evaluate the quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in domestic medical journals in 2011. Methods The following 4 Chinese databases including WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI and CBM were searched from January 2011 to December 2011. The quality of included guidelines was assessed by using AGREE II. Results A total of 75 guidelines published in 2011 were included. Among them, 10 guidelines (13%) stated the conflict of interest, 10 guidelines (13%) mentioned evidence-based developing, 5 guidelines (7%) performed evidence grading system, 8 guidelines (11%) performed recommendation strength grading system, and 4 guidelines (5%) performed both evidence and recommendation strength grading systems. The ratio of the 6 domains’ scores of AGREEⅡ were as follows: scope and purpose (18%), stakeholder involvement (11%), rigour of development (8%), clarity of presentation (34%), applicability (5%), and editorial independence (14%). Conclusion Compared with the guidelines published before, the guidelines of 2011 have a higher quality and some of them are progressively standardized in developing methodology.