Reporting Items For Practice Guidelines In HealThcare Checklist Research Articles

Evaluating clinical practice guidelines for the management of rectal cancer: Did they get it RIGHT?

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are crucial tools for clinicians seeking to deliver evidence-based patient care. We utilized the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the reporting quality of CPGs addressing the management of rectal cancer. Four multidisciplinary rectal cancer CPGs published 2017-2022 were evaluated: American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We quantitatively assessed each CPG using the RIGHT checklist and qualitative analysis was performed to generate common themes. RIGHT checklist items fulfilled by each CPG ranged from 12 to 17 (out of 22). Each guideline demonstrated unique categories of weakness: ASCRS in Basic Information (1 of 4 items), ESMO in Evidence (1 of 3), NCCN in Recommendations (1 of 3), and NICE in Review and Quality Assurance (0 of 2). Common themes that emerged included sprase discussion on the financial aspects of rectal cancer management and lack of transparency in formulating recommendations. Despite their variability, each of the 22 checklist elements are present in contemporary CPGs. Utilizing the RIGHT checklist would allow experts to create guidelines adhering to high-quality reporting standards.

Quality evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for placenta accreta spectrum disorders

IntroductionWe evaluated the quality of the published clinical practice guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders to provide reference for the development of high-quality PAS guidelines. MethodsChina National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Quality assessments were conducted using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II framework and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement among reviewers. ResultsIn total, 13 guidelines from different countries, published between 2015 and 2021 were included. There included 9 official guidelines, 3 consensuses, and 1 standard reference and covered subjects including epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. The mean standardized scores across 6 domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence) were 53.63%, 27.35%, 33.57%, 72.01%, 19.39% and 41.02%, respectively. Of the 13 guidelines, 11 were classified as grade B, whereas 2 as grade C. According to the RIGHT checklist, the overall reporting rate of the 13 guidelines ranged from 28.57% to 54.29%. ConclusionThe current guidelines for PAS demonstrate commendable methodological and reporting qualities. However, the methodological and reporting quality of PAS CPGs still need to be further improved, particularly in stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains.

Evidence mapping of clinical practice guidelines on nutritional management for pressure injuries and their quality.

The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury. This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps. The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software. This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%). This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.

Evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rheumatic and immunologic diseases with calcineurin inhibitors: a consensus statement

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), including oral cyclosporin A and tacrolimus, are intensive immunosuppressants that are extensively used in the treatment of rheumatic and immunologic diseases in China. CNI selectively inhibit the activation and proliferation of T lymphocytes and the transcription of cytokines [such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-17] through inhibiting the activation of calcineurin in cells and reducing the release of IL-2. To standardize the use of CNI in the field of rheumatic and immunologic diseases, this consensus statement was developed by the National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (Peking Union Medical College Hospital), in conjunction with the Chinese Association of Rheumatology and Immunology Physicians, the Chinese Research Hospital Association, the Rheumatology and Immunology Professional Committee, and the Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine. The 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence was used to rate the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations, and the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) checklist was followed to report the consensus. The consensus offers recommendations addressing nine clinical challenges to Chinese clinicians. The primary objective of this consensus is to deliver scientific and detailed guidance on CNI for Chinese clinicians, and to improve the quality of patient-centered medical services.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for the management of wheezing disorders in children.

BACKGROUND: The quality of available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for childhood wheezing disorders have not been systematically evaluated.METHODS: CPGs were systematically evaluated by four independent reviewers using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealTHcare (RIGHT) checklist. We calculated the overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).RESULTS: A total of 35 CPGs published between January 2000 and December 2020 were evaluated. The overall agreement among reviewers was good (ICC 0.85, 95% CI 0.83-0.87). The average CPGs score was 42% (range: 25-79). The mean scores of four domains were low: 37% for Stakeholder Involvement (range: 10-85), 28% for Rigour of Development (range: 42-81), 35% for Applicability (range: 11-73) and 24% for Editorial Independence (range: 0-83). The mean reporting rate of the RIGHT checklist was 31%. The Basic Information domain had the highest reporting rate (65%); the Review and Quality Assurance domain had the lowest rate (3%).CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the CPGs was poor. Greater efforts are needed to improve quality in domains to provide high-quality guidelines that can be used as reliable tools for clinical decision-making.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Analysis of reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

ObjectiveThe current study aimed to assess the reporting quality of the clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist. MethodsWe searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biological Literature Service System, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Elsevier clinicalkey, BMJ Database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization Network and other websites. We collected clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer with published between 1 January 2017 and 1 April 2021 after release of the RIGHT checklist. Two reviewers extracted the basic information independently and conducted a RIGHT evaluation. ResultsEighteen guidelines/consensuses were included, 10 from China and 8 from other countries. The average reporting rate was 74.1%±11.2%. Thirteen items had 100% reporting rate, and the reporting rate for items No. 16 (11.1%), 17 (16.7%) and 18b (22.2%) was low. Basic information had the highest reporting rate (100%), whereas review and quality assurance had the lowest (13.9%). The average reporting rate of guidelines/consensuses published in other countries was higher than in China [p=0.005; odds ration (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–1.28]. The average reporting rate of the guidelines was higher than that of the consensus statements (p<0.001; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10–1.31). The reporting rates of guidelines/consensuses focused on whole body (79.0%±12.7%) were higher than local organ (69.2%±7.3%) metastases (p=0.005; OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25). ConclusionsThe quality of reporting using the RIGHT checklist varied among the guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer. Low-quality items were external review and quality assurance. Developers of guidelines/consensuses should aim to improve the reporting quality in the future.

Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on physical restraints in ICU: a systematic review.

Physical restraint has been regarded as a protective measure in the intensive care unit (ICU) in order to avoid unexpected events. But a great number of researches have proven that physical restraints can cause bad influences on patients' mental health, such as language delays of children, sense of uncertainty, loss of trust, etc. However, it is unclear whether there are currently high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide clinical practice in physical restraints. So we aim to analyze available CPGs on physical restraints in ICU with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) evaluating methodological quality and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) evaluating reporting quality. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CNKI (Chinese database), Wanfang data (Chinese database), relevant websites (GIN, NICE, SIGN, RNAO, AHRQ, AACN), and Google from their inception to Nov 21, 2021. Two reviewers independently use the AGREE II tool and RIGHT checklist to evaluate methodological and reporting quality of included guidelines on physical restraints in ICU. The number and proportion of reported items of RIGHT checklist and the scores of each domain of AGREE II were calculated. We also evaluated the consistency among the reviewers via use of the intragroup correlation coefficient. A total of six guidelines were included. The mean AGREE II score for the included guidelines was 39.56% with a range of 30.27-69.85%. No guideline was "high quality", and only one guideline was "moderate quality" with 69.85% mean AGREE II score. The mean RIGHT reporting score for guidelines was 41.0% with a range of 24.7-77.7%. Only one guideline was "moderate-reported" with a mean reporting score of 77.7%. In general, the methodological and reporting quality of physical restraints guidelines is low, and future development or updating of high-quality guidelines to guide clinical practice is needed.

Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

ObjectivesTo analyze the effectiveness and quality of stroke clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years in order to guide future guideline developers to develop better guidelines.ParticipantsNo patient involvedMethodPubMed, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wanfang, CNKI, and CPG-relevant websites were searched from January 2015 to December 2019 by two researchers independently. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality in terms of domains and items. Then, a subgroup analysis of the results was performed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresRIGHT checklist reporting rateResultsA total of 66 CPGs were included. Twice as many CPGs were published internationally as were published in China. More than half were updated. Most CPGs are published in journals, developed by societies or associations, and were evidence-based grading. The average reporting rate for all included CPGs was 47.6%. Basic information got the highest (71.7% ± 19.7%) reporting rate, while review and quality assurance got the lowest (22.0% ± 24.6%). Then, a cluster analysis between countries, publishing channels, and institutions was performed. There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting quality on the CPGs between publishing countries (China vs. international), publishing channels (journals vs. websites), and institutions (associations vs. non-associations).ConclusionsCurrent stroke CPGs reports are of low quality. We recommend that guideline developers improve the quality of reporting of key information and improve the management of conflicts of interest. We recommend that guideline developers consider the RIGHT checklist as an important tool for guideline development.Trial registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PBWUX.

Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of AML have great value in clinical practice. However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not yet been evaluated. This is the first study aiming to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent AML CPGs published worldwide using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) to extract CPGs for AML published between January 2016 and December 2020. Websites for guideline development organizations and medical associations were also searched. Two independent researchers assessed compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 checklist items and summarized reporting rates for the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist.ResultsWe identified 16 guidelines, of which 3 (18.8%) were written in Chinese and 13 (81.3%) were written in English. The average overall reporting rate of the 16 guidelines was 52.9%, and only 7 CPGs (43.8%) had a reporting rate >50%. The average reporting rates of the 7 domains (basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding, declaration, and management of interests; and other information) were 79.2%, 62.5%, 38.8%, 53.6%, 21.9%, 32.8%, and 43.8%, respectively. For the 35 checklist items, the average reporting rate was 52.9%, and only 16 items had a reporting rate >50%, of which 5 items were reported by all the guidelines. There was 1 item which was not reported by any of the guidelines.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of recently published AML guidelines remains poor. While the recommendations of CPGs have great value in clinical practice, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML still needs to be improved.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundThe International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to use RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on prostate cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched literature databases and websites from January 1, 2018 to December 1, 2020 to identify CPGs on prostate cancer. Two investigators reviewed the identified articles and assessed the reporting quality independently by using the RIGHT checklist. We reported the proportions of guidelines that complied with each of the 35 RIGHT checklist item and the mean reporting compliance percentages for each of the seven domains of RIGHT.ResultsA total of 38 CPGs were included. The mean overall reporting rate over the included CPGs was 51.6%. Eighteen items were reported by more than half of the guidelines four items (1a 3, 7a and 13a) were reported by all guidelines. Items 7b (10.5%), 13b (10.5%), 14c (13.2%), and 18b (7.9%) had the lowest reporting proportions. The mean reporting rates in each RIGHT domain were 74.6% for “Basic Information”, 26.3% for “Review and quality assurance”, 59.9% for “Background”, 43.7% for “Evidence”, 43.2% for “Recommendations”, 43.4% for “Funding and declaration and management of interests”, and 43.0% for “Other information”.ConclusionsThe overall adherence of CPGs on prostate cancer to RIGHT checklist is poor. Following the RIGHT checklist during the development of the guideline could improve the quality of reporting in the future.

A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women. The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on breast cancer has been shown to be heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of breast cancer CPGs published in years 2018-2020, using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.MethodsWe searched Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) as well as websites of guideline organizations for CPGs on breast cancer published between 2018 and 2020. We used the RIGHT checklist to evaluate the reporting quality of the included guidelines by assessing whether the CPGs adhered to each item of the checklist and calculated the proportions of appropriately reported RIGHT checklist items. We also presented the adherence reporting rates for each guideline and the mean rates for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.ResultsA total of 45 guidelines were included. Eighteen (40.0%) guidelines had an overall reporting rate below 50% and only three (6.7%) reported more than 80% of the items. The domains “Basic information” and “Background” had the highest reporting rates (75.9% and 62.5%, respectively). The mean reporting rates of the domains “Evidence”, “Recommendation”, “Review and quality assurance”, “Funding and declaration and management of interests” and “Other information” were 42.7%, 53.0%, 33.3%, 45.0%, and 44.4%, respectively.ConclusionsThe reporting quality varied among guidelines for breast cancer, showing the need for improvement in reporting the contents. Guideline developers should pay more attention to reporting the evidence, review and quality assurance, and funding and declaration and management of interests in future.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on melanoma using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundThe International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) instrument was launched in 2016 to improve the reporting of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on melanoma using RIGHT.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases and medical society websites until November 2020 to identify guidelines for melanoma published since 2018. The reporting quality of included guidelines was assessed by calculating the percentages of the 35 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported. We stratified the results by selected characteristics to describe the correlation of these factors with reporting quality.ResultsA total of 20 guidelines were identified and analyzed. The mean reporting rate was greater than 50% in five of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist; the remaining two domains (Other information, Review and quality assurance) both had a mean reporting rate of 35.0%. The mean overall reporting rate was 63.7%. No CPG considered equity, feasibility or acceptability of the recommendations (item 14c), and only one CPG described the role of funders (item 18b). Guidelines that reported funding or were published in higher-impact journals tended to have a higher reporting quality, whereas the reporting rate in the one included Chinese-language CPG was low.ConclusionsReporting quality of melanoma CPGs tends to be relatively good. The CPGs developed in China were however an exception. The use of the 2016 RIGHT tool in guideline development should be encouraged to support rigorous and transparent reporting.

Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting checklist.

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.ResultsTwenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on gliomas using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gliomas has not yet been thoroughly assessed. The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement developed in 2016 provides a reporting framework to improve the quality of CPGs. We aimed to estimate the reporting quality of glioma guidelines using the RIGHT checklist and investigate how the reporting quality differs by selected characteristics.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites to retrieve CPGs on glioma published between 2018 and 2020. We calculated the compliance of the CPGs to individual items, domains and the RIGHT checklist overall. We performed stratified analyses by publication year, country of development, reporting of funding, and impact factor (IF) of the journal.ResultsOur search revealed 20 eligible guidelines. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT statement was 54.6%. Eight CPGs reported more than 60% of the items, and five reported less than 50%. All guidelines adhered to the items 1a, 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 17 or 18b (see http://www.right-statement.org/right-statement/checklist for a description of the items). Two of the seven domains, “Basic information” and “Background”, had mean reporting rates above 60%. The “Review and quality assurance” domain had the lowest mean reporting rate, 12.5%. The reporting quality of guidelines published in 2020, guidelines developed in the United States, and guidelines that reported funding tended to be above average.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of CPGs on gliomas is low and needs improvement. Particular attention should be paid on reporting the external review and quality assurance process. The use of the RIGHT criteria should be encouraged to guide the development, reporting and evaluation of CPGs.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundGastric cancer is the fifth most common type of cancer globally. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of gastric cancer.MethodsWe searched Medline (via PubMed), China Biology Medicine, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang databases and the websites of the main guideline development organizations from 2018 to 2020 for guidelines on gastric cancer. Data were extracted and the reporting quality evaluated by two researchers independently using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. We assessed the compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 items of RIGHT and summarized the reporting proportions of the seven domains of RIGHT.ResultsEighteen guidelines were included. The mean proportion of appropriately reported RIGHT items was 52.4%. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, Basic information had the highest reporting rate (78.7%), and Review and quality assurance domain the lowest rate (16.7%). The domains Evidence (40.0%), Funding and declaration and management of interests (43.1%), and Other information (31.5%) had also reporting rates below 50%. Two RIGHT items (17 and 19b) were not reported by any of the guidelines.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of gastric cancer guidelines published in the years 2018-2020 was suboptimal, especially regarding the reporting of review, quality assurance and evidence. Guideline developers should pay attention on rigorous reporting following international standard to improve the quality of guidelines.

An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist.

BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the prevention, surveillance, diagnosis and management of HCC are essential to guide clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent CPGs for HCC published worldwide.MethodsWe systematically searched literature databases and websites of guideline development organizations and medical associations to extract CPGs on HCC published between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We assessed for each of the 35 RIGHT checklist items whether the guidelines reported the corresponding information. We calculated the mean (± standard error of the mean, SEM) percentages of the guidelines’ compliance with the items (reporting rate), both overall and for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.ResultsWe identified 22 guidelines, of which three (14%) were written in Chinese and 19 (86%) in English. The mean ±SEM overall reporting rate in the twenty-two guidelines was 56%±4%. The reporting rates of the seven domains were the following: basic information 81%±3%, background 58%±6%, evidence 58%±6%, recommendations 59%±5%, review and quality assurance 34%±10%, funding and declaration and management of interests 39%±4%, and other information 23%±6%.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of the recently published guidelines for HCC was suboptimal. While there is no doubt about the great value of the CPGs’ recommendations in clinical practice, the reporting in CPGs for HCC still needs improvement.

Quality assessment of global prostate cancer screening guidelines

Objective: To systematically review the quality of clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer screening to serve as a reference for developing prostate cancer screening guidelines in China. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed with the term "prostate cancer" "prostate carcinoma" "prostate tumor" "screening" "early detection" "guideline" "recommendation" as keywords. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Ⅱ instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) were used for critical appraisal. Results: A total of thirteen guidelines were included in this review. Evaluated by the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, ten were considered as A level. Two guidelines scored B level, and one was considered C level. Lowest mean domain scores were for stakeholder involvement (52.1%) and applicability (34.0%). Using the RIGHT checklist, we found that the low reporting quality of the thirteen guidelines could be attributable to incomplete disclosure of evidence (64.6%), funding, declaration and management of interest (44.2%), or other information (46.2%). Conclusions: No guidelines for prostate cancer screening was developed in China. The methodological quality of the guidelines in prostate cancer screening was good, which set a tone for the development of Chinese guidelines. However, all guidelines showed poor reporting quality.

Quality assessment of global breast cancer screening guidelines

Objective: To evaluate the quality of the published breast cancer screening guidelines to provide a reference for domestic studies in the future. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang Data were searched to identify breast cancer screening guidelines on until August 2020. Two reviewers screened literature and extracted data independently. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare(RIGHT) tools were used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Results: A total of 15 breast cancer screening guidelines were included, of which seven were published in the United States, with publication years focusing on 2015 to 2019, and 11 guidelines had updated versions. "Rigour of development" (47.0%±22.1%) and "Applicability" (44.0%±15.1%) of AGREEⅡ scored lower than other domains. "Review and quality assurance" (46.7%±39.9%) and "Funding, declaration, and management of interests" (41.7%±24.4%) of RIGHT were reported poorer than others. There were six guidelines recommended and another nine recommended with modifications based on the overall AGREEⅡ score. There were four guidelines with a good level, and another 11 were with a moderate level of RIGHT. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network published the best overall quality guidelines in 2018 (AGREEⅡ: 83.3%, RIGHT: 80.0%) and by the American Cancer Society in 2015 (AGREEⅡ: 83.3%, RIGHT: 85.7%). Conclusion: The quality of breast cancer screening guidelines was predominantly of moderate quality, and greater attention should be paid to the guideline development process and quality control of the guidelines.

Guidelines for the Management of Children and Adolescent with COVID-19: protocol for an update.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a constant threat to people’s lives, bringing huge challenges to the global public health and medical service system. In order to ensure the timeliness and reliability of the recommendations in guidelines, the working group of the Rapid Advice Guidelines for Management of Children with COVID-19 decided to update the guideline to incorporate the latest evidence to guide the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent.MethodsWe will update the guidelines, originally developed as a rapid advice guideline, into a standard guideline. We will follow the clinical practice guideline (CPG) update manuals of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). The updated guidelines will also follow the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist and Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp).DiscussionThrough systematic search, evaluation and grading of the best available relevant clinical evidence, combined with the experience of frontline clinical experts in the fight against the epidemic and the wishes of patients and their caretakers, we will update our previous rapid advice guidelines into a high-quality, implementable standard guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent.Trial registrationThe standard guideline update has been registered at the International Practice Guidelines Registry Platform (http://guidelines-registry.cn/?lang=en, registration No. IPGRP-2020CN101).