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.
ObjectivesTo compare and analyze existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments, and to provide suggestions on how to choose the most appropriate instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and analyzed studies in terms of items, design methods, scopes and characteristics.ResultsTwelve original checklists with good reliability and validity were found. The first quality assessment method was designed in 1987 and the latest one was published in 2013. The number of checklist items ranged from 11 to 61.ConclusionThere is no consolidated method for assessing the quality of pharmaceutical economics evaluations. Evaluators can choose appropriate evaluation tools according to the purpose, type and operability of evaluation.
The study appeared the comparison between CONSORT and CENT, and promoted the combination with GRADE and N-of-1 trial. Our objective is to further develop the method of N-of-1 trial and to widely use it in clinical researches of some diseases.
It is the key for evidence-base decision to gain the high quality evidences. As a valuable method,systematic review has been widely used in medical areas with the improvement of the method, but it cannot be useddirectly in health policy field, because the characters of the health policy such as research topics, methods and objectives.The Center for Health Management and Policy of Shandong University has made some researches which focus on themethod under the support from the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (WHO) from 2006. We haveexplored the two-stage systematic review method of health policy researches and applied it into reality. The purpose of thisarticle is to introduce the key technical of this method, which include quality assessment of the literatures, analysis andintegrated approaches. We also put forward the work which needs to be continued in the future.
AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) is currently developed as a measurement tool with extensive application to assess the methodological quality of systematic review/meta-analysis. It has good reliability, validity, and responsibility, and has been widely applied. This paper introduces AMSTAR to researchers and users in China, in view of development procedure, assessment items, and application status.
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.
Objective To explore the quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine from 1999 to 2004. Methods A manual search was performed and the 22 checklists of CONSORT statement and other self-established criteria were applied. Results Six volumes and 72 issues were checked. There were 1 874 clinical trials of which 1288 (68.73%) RCTs were identified in 2 765 articles. Randomization methods were described in 630 (48.92%) RCTs which showed there was more significant difference than the RCTs published in 1998 (Plt;0.001).In the 1288 RCTs, placebo control was reported only in 21 trials (1.63%) and endpoint measurements were reported in 114 trials (8.85%). Seven trials (0.55%) mentioned the estimation of sample size. None mentioned randomization concealment. Blinding was reported in 54 trials (4.2%) and P value was reported in 9 trials (0.70%).Flow chart was not mentioned in any trials. Compliance was reported in 2 trials (0.16%), and only one trial (0.08%) reported negative results. Ancillary analysis was used in 33 trials (2.57%). 10 trials are multi-centre RCTs. None of the trials reported the approval of ethics committee. Informed consent was reported in 3 trials (0.24%). Acknowledgements were mentioned in 3 trials (0.24%). Syndrome types defined by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) were reported in 163 trials (12.66%). The criteria of intervention quality control was mentioned in 2 trials (0.15%). Double dummy was used in 8 trials (0.63%) and outcome measurement of TCM was reported in 258 trials (20.04%). All Items reported in RCTs were of low quality. Conclusions The quality of reporting of RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine from 1999 to 2004 has been improved, but it does not meet the CONSORT statement.
Objective To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion. Methods We searched CNKI database to collect meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion up to 2015. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using AMSTAR tool, and quality assessment was carried out by PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 19.0 software. Results A total of 31 meta-analyses were enrolled. Among all the 31 meta-analyses, the first authors came from 19 institutions, and 21 meta-analysis were supported by fundings. All meta-analyses were about the evaluations of acupuncture intervention, involving 10 disease systems (ICD-10) and sub-health. The mean score of the methodological assessment was 7.42±1.13. In addition, the mean score of reporting quality was 18.79±2.04. Conclusion The meta-analyses published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion have high quality on methodology as well as reporting. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above results are needed to be further assessed by more studies.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th, 2018. The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology, adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included. In terms of methodological quality, 6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type, and few of them explained the pre-plan, exclusion list, reasons and funding. In terms of report quality, 7 studies were relatively complete, 10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects. The existing problems were program and registration, comprehensive retrieval, information sources, financial support and so on. ConclusionsSRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.
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.