A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

被引:0
|
作者
Cheng, Cheng [1 ,2 ]
Wu, Xuan [1 ,2 ]
Song, Wenping [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Li, Dongbei [1 ,2 ]
Hao, Lidan [1 ,2 ]
Li, Xiaojing [6 ]
Zhang, Wenzhou [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Li, Ding [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Zhengzhou Univ, Dept Internal Med, Affiliated Canc Hosp, Zhengzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Henan Canc Hosp, 127 Dong Ming Rd, Zhengzhou 450008, Peoples R China
[3] Zhengzhou Univ, Dept Pharm, Affiliated Canc Hosp, 127 Dong Ming Rd, Zhengzhou 450008, Peoples R China
[4] Henan Canc Hosp, Henan Engn Res Ctr Tumor Precis Med & Comprehens E, Zhengzhou, Peoples R China
[5] Henan Canc Hosp, Henan Prov Key Lab Anticanc Drug Res, Zhengzhou, Peoples R China
[6] Zhengzhou Univ, Dept Pharm, Affiliated Hosp 3, Zhengzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
Bladder cancer (BLCA); clinical practice guideline (CPG); Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT); reporting quality; improvement; UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA; RECOMMENDATIONS; ASSOCIATION; CARE;
D O I
10.21037/tau-22-712
中图分类号
R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The 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.Methods: We 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.Results: A 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. Conclusions: The 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.
引用
收藏
页码:1586 / 1597
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Reporting specifications regarding epilepsy practice guidelines based on the RIGHT reporting checklist: an analysis
    Wang, Zhijie
    Zhang, Yu
    Guo, Wei
    Hu, Xiaoyang Mio
    Gao, Xiao
    Lu, Liming
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (12):
  • [22] The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines
    Brouwers, Melissa C.
    Kerkvliet, Kate
    Spithoff, Karen
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 352
  • [23] Using AGREE II reporting checklist to evaluate the quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines
    Huang, Fan
    Zhang, Yue
    Huang, Chuyu
    Qiu, Mingwang
    Zhao, Siyi
    Liang, Junquan
    Fan, Zhiyong
    Wu, Shan
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2023, 10
  • [24] Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
    Shuya Lu
    Xufei Luo
    Xiaojia Ni
    Haoxuan Li
    Miaomiao Meng
    Yefeng Cai
    Yunlan Liu
    Mengjuan Ren
    Yanrui Sun
    Yaolong Chen
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [25] Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
    Lu, Shuya
    Luo, Xufei
    Ni, Xiaojia
    Li, Haoxuan
    Meng, Miaomiao
    Cai, Yefeng
    Liu, Yunlan
    Ren, Mengjuan
    Sun, Yanrui
    Chen, Yaolong
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [26] Development, Reporting, and Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines
    Benzon, Honorio T.
    Joshi, Girish P.
    Gan, Tong J.
    Vetter, Thomas R.
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2019, 129 (06): : 1771 - 1777
  • [27] Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines
    Xiaoqin Wang
    Qi Zhou
    Yaolong Chen
    Nan Yang
    Kevin Pottie
    Yujie Xiao
    Yajing Tong
    Liang Yao
    Qi Wang
    Kehu Yang
    Susan L. Norris
    [J]. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18
  • [28] Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines
    Wang, Xiaoqin
    Zhou, Qi
    Chen, Yaolong
    Yang, Nan
    Pottie, Kevin
    Xiao, Yujie
    Tong, Yajing
    Yao, Liang
    Wang, Qi
    Yang, Kehu
    Norris, Susan L.
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2020, 18 (01)
  • [29] THE AGREE REPORTING CHECKLIST The AGREE Reporting Checklist is useful for assessing the quality of clinical practice guideline development
    Irving, Greg
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 353
  • [30] Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on head and neck cancer: a systematic review
    Hou, Jiabao
    Guo, Qiangqiang
    Zhou, Hanqiong
    Wu, Xuan
    Hao, Lidan
    Zhang, Zhe
    Ma, Shuxiang
    Han, Jing
    He, Zhen
    Liu, Zhensheng
    Chen, Yaolong
    Wang, Qiming
    [J]. TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2022, 11 (06) : 1795 - +