Objective To systematically review the requirements of patient participation in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Chinese and foreign guideline development manuals. Methods Thirty-six authoritative society websites and guideline databases and 5 commonly used databases were searched online. Relevant information on patients’ participation in the guideline manuals was collected, summarized, and analyzed. Results A total of 37 manuals (33 foreign and 4 Chinese) were included. The requirements for the number of patients, the right to speak, status equality, and the right to vote in the guideline development manual accounted for 35.1%, 13.5%, 8.1%, and 5.4%, respectively. The requirements for participants’ mode of participation were not mentioned in the guideline development manuals from 2000 to 2010. There were 6 (16.2%) in 2011–2015 and 12 (32.4%) in 2016–2022. The comprehensive guidelines for multiple disease types accounted for 35.7%, 28.6%, and 57.1%, respectively, in terms of requirements for participants’ knowledge or experience, management of specialized personnel, and training support. The specific guidelines for a certain type of disease or drug accounted for 21.7%, 4.3%, and 17.4%, respectively; fifteen (40.5%) guideline development manuals mentioned the specific collection forms of patients’ values and preferences in guideline development. Conclusion Given changes to medical models and the emphasis on patients’ rights and interests, an increasing number of manuals have proposed requirements that consider the expression of patients’ values and preferences in manual development, and the dimensions of manual development are constantly enriched. However, manuals outlining the requirements of patient participation are still not comprehensive and can continue to improve.
Chinese medicine (CM) has significant clinical effects in the treatment of tracheal-bronchitis. It is of important clinical significance to formulate guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of tracheal-bronchitis based on the characteristics of TCM syndrome differentiation. The Respiratory Disease Branch of China Association of Chinese Medicine and Respiratory Disease Branch of China Medical Association of Minorities organized and established a multi-disciplinary background working group, based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development and the Guideline Development Handbook for Diagnosis and Therapy of Integrative Medicine to develop this guideline. It was developed through technical links such as clinical problem investigation, evidence collection and evaluation, Delphi consultation, and expert consensus meetings. Based on the current best evidence, CM intervention costs and expert experience, 25 recommendations were established to standardize the etiology and pathogenesis of tracheal-bronchitis, syndrome differentiation and treatment, prevention, and care, etc., which can be used by physicians at different levels of medical institutions.
Objectives To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma published in 2016 and 2017 in China. Methods CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched for clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma in China. The search date was from Jan. 1st, 2016 to Jan. 1st, 2018. Four researchers independently selected literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) was utilized to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Results A total of 7 guidelines were included. The average scores of six domains for these guidelines were: 65.1% for scope and purpose, 39.4% for stakeholders’ involvement, 64.3% for rigor of development, 55.6% for clarity of presentation, 61.8% for applicability and 6.1% for editorial independence. Conclusions The quality of clinical practice guidelines for primary hepatic carcinoma in China is relative high, of which the recommendations are of great value in clinical practice, yet still required to be improved in some ways.
This paper introduces the development and changes of clinical practice guidelines based on the enlightenment of the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT), and provides policy recommendations.
Objective To evaluate the clinical applicability of clinical practice guidelines in China in the past 5 years, and to provide suggestions for better development and implementation of guidelines. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 61 guidelines issued by the Chinese Medical Association and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association from 2015 to 2020 were selected randomly based on CNKI database. Each guideline was evaluated by medical staff from three regions using the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Quantitative data were described by mean, standard deviation, median and interquartile range, while qualitative data were described by frequency and composition ratio. Results A total of 6 904 valid questionnaires were collected from 119 medical institutions in 26 provinces of China. The results showed that the standardized scores ranged from 54.4% to 72.7% (median 64.3%) for accessibility, from 66.1% to 83.3% (median 74.9%) for readability, from 53.7% to 94.7% (median 86.0%) for acceptability, and ranged from 61.4% to 81.0% (median 72.5%) for feasibility. Approximately 4.3% of the medical staff considered that there were obstacles to implement the guidelines, including environmental factors (32.1%), medical staff factors (26.5%), guidelines factors (22.5%), and patients or family factors (18.9%). Conclusion The overall clinical applicability of the guidelines selected in this study is satisfactory. However, it is necessary to improve the accessibility of clinical guidelines. In addition, to improve the clinical applicability, it is suggested that medical staff should be trained and provided with supporting resources.
In the process of guideline development and construction of clinical questions, it is necessary to guide clinicians to propose clinical problems into PICO (population, intervention, control, outcome) structured clinical questions. However, there are still unclear criteria to define and judge the appropriateness of the width of the PICO elements of a clinical question. Either too wide or too narrow can make the PICO question unsuitable to be a question for clinical practice guidelines to answer. We graded the clinical questions to be eight grades (3, 2, 1, 0, ?1, ?2, ?3, mixed) according to the number of the PIC elements, which obviously needed to be adjusted to evaluate applicability of the appropriateness of the width of the clinical questions. Our work can provide methodological references for clinicians and guideline developers.
Objective The ultimate goal of developing guidelines is for using them in clinical practice. In this study, an implementation evaluation tool was developed to promote the overall evaluation of guidelines and to improve their promotion and implementation. Methods The research group set up a team to formulate and establish a guideline implementation evaluation tool, through preliminary research, interviews, a systematic review of relevant literature, two expert consensus meetings and two Delphi expert consensus meetings to evaluate the guideline implementation tool. Experts were invited to give opinions and grades on the fields, items and overall implementation evaluation method of the tool. Results The evaluation tool for the implementation of guidelines included 5 fields, accessibility, communicability, performability, recognizability and applicability, with a total of 7 items. The scale-level CVIs in two rounds of Delphi expert consensus were 0.91 and 0.93. We collected opinions and suggestions and made some revisions and insertions without deleting any items based on the parameter that no items fulfilled the standard if mean <3.5, coefficient of variation >15% and I-CVI<0.78. Conclusion In this study, in order to provide a standard and method for the evaluation of guideline implementation, a guideline implementation evaluation tool has been developed and evaluated by clinically-related physicians and guideline formulation methodology experts. The guideline implementation evaluation tool presents satisfactory face and content validity. Empirical research is needed to verify the tool’s performance in evaluating guideline implementation.
This paper interprets 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) peripheral arterial disease diagnosis and treatment guidelines on lower extremity arterial disease, and in order to provide reference for clinical practice.