Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist

被引:14
|
作者
Tokalic, Ruzica [1 ]
Vidak, Marin [1 ]
Buljan, Ivan [1 ]
Marusic, Ana [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Split, Dept Res Biomed & Hlth, Sch Med, Split, Croatia
来源
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE | 2018年 / 13卷
关键词
Health practice guidelines; Reporting guidelines; RIGHT checklist; Evidence translation; CLINICAL GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundHealth practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.MethodsThe national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014-2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n=24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF10) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.ResultsOverall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0-15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0-17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P=0.048; BF10=1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF10=80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF10=55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF10=16.90), primary intended users (BF10=8.70), and sources of funding (BF10=122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.ConclusionsImportant methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist
    Ružica Tokalić
    Marin Viđak
    Ivan Buljan
    Ana Marušić
    [J]. Implementation Science, 13
  • [2] Reporting quality of 2014–2018 clinical practice guidelines on diabetes according to the RIGHT checklist
    Qianmei Wang
    Yuting Duan
    Jielin Liang
    Ze Chen
    Juexuan Chen
    Yan Zheng
    Yaolong Chen
    Chunzhi Tang
    [J]. Endocrine, 2019, 65 : 531 - 541
  • [3] Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting checklist
    Han, Jing
    Tao, Meng
    Wu, Xuan
    Li, Ding
    Ma, Yanfang
    Dawood, Shaheenah
    Steele, Colin W.
    Tan, Ker-Kan
    Wang, Qiming
    [J]. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (14)
  • [4] Reporting quality of 2014-2018 clinical practice guidelines on diabetes according to the RIGHT checklist
    Wang, Qianmei
    Duan, Yuting
    Liang, Jielin
    Chen, Ze
    Chen, Juexuan
    Zheng, Yan
    Chen, Yaolong
    Tang, Chunzhi
    [J]. ENDOCRINE, 2019, 65 (03) : 531 - 541
  • [5] Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia according to the RIGHT checklist: systematic review
    Can Wang
    Xufei Luo
    Maichao Li
    Lingling Cui
    Xinde Li
    Lin Han
    Xuefeng Wang
    Wei Ren
    Yuwei He
    Wenyan Sun
    Changgui Li
    Yaolong Chen
    Zhen Liu
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [6] Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia according to the RIGHT checklist: systematic review
    Wang, Can
    Luo, Xufei
    Li, Maichao
    Cui, Lingling
    Li, Xinde
    Han, Lin
    Wang, Xuefeng
    Ren, Wei
    He, Yuwei
    Sun, Wenyan
    Li, Changgui
    Chen, Yaolong
    Liu, Zhen
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [7] Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on melanoma using the RIGHT checklist
    Yang, Yongjie
    Ma, Yanfang
    Lu, Jingli
    Zhang, Qiwen
    Guan, Kelei
    Liu, Kefeng
    kang, Jian
    Du, Shuzhang
    Tang, Shu
    Liu, Xuehui
    Zhang, Ailing
    Schadendorf, Dirk
    Agarwala, Sanjiv S.
    Zhang, Xiaojian
    [J]. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (14)
  • [8] Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on gliomas using the RIGHT checklist
    Yang, Yongjie
    Ma, Yanfang
    Lu, Jingli
    Du, Shuzhang
    Zhang, Jingmin
    Meng, Haiyang
    Chen, Zhe
    Zhang, Qiwen
    Zhang, Xiaojian
    Shi, Wenyin
    Girolamo, Francesco
    Cepeda, Santiago
    Kang, Jian
    [J]. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (12)
  • [9] Reporting quality of polycystic ovary syndrome practice guidelines based on the RIGHT checklist
    Li, Hongzhu
    Zhang, Yu
    Lu, Liming
    Yi, Wei
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (42) : E22624
  • [10] Reporting quality evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for pulmonary nodules with the RIGHT checklist
    Wu Xuan
    Wang Wenqiang
    Zhang Quncheng
    Sun Ya
    Wei Nan
    Yang Li
    Yang Yuanjian
    Yang Huizhen
    Liu Haiyang
    Zhang Xiaoju
    [J]. 中华医学杂志(英文版), 2024, 137 (05)