儿童青少年糖尿病临床循证指南质量AGREEⅡ评价情况  

Quality appraisal of clinical evidence-based guidelines for diabetes in children and adolescents based on AGREE Ⅱ

作　　者：丁翔宇[1] 王建欣[2] 张古英[1] 刘艳辉[1] DING Xiangyu;WANG Jianxin;ZHANG Guying;LIU Yanhui(Department of Pharmacy,Children′s Hospital of Hebei Province,Hebei Province,Shijiazhuang 050031,China;Department of Pharmacy,the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Hebei Province,Shijiazhuang 050030,China)

机构地区：[1]河北省儿童医院药剂科,河北石家庄050031 [2]河北医科大学第一医院药剂科,河北石家庄050030

出　　处：《中国医药导报》2019年第27期65-68,共4页China Medical Herald

基　　金：河北省卫生计生委医学科学研究重点课题计划项目(20150567)

摘　　要：目的评价儿童青少年糖尿病临床循证指南质量,比较各指南药物治疗差异,为临床医师及药师提供用药参考。方法计算机检索中国知网、万方数据库、维普、中国生物医学文献数据库、PubMed、Embase及医脉通官网、GIN、AAP、NGC、NICE等网站,检索时限为建库至2018年12月。纳入儿童青少年糖尿病临床循证指南,应用指南研究与评价(AGREEⅡ)对指南质量进行评价,对药物治疗推荐意见进行比较。结果纳入指南4篇,分别为美国AAP、国际ISPAD、马来西亚MaHTAS、英国NICE,4篇指南总体质量相对较高,其中MaHTAS与NICE指南质量评级为A级,而AAP及ISPAD指南质量评级为B级。各领域中“清晰性”与“范围与目的”得分较高,而“严谨性”与“应用性”得分相对较低,各指南药物推荐意见基本一致。结论纳入指南质量相对较高,我国目前尚缺乏儿童糖尿病临床循证指南,建议采用循证制订的方法,制订符合我国国情的循证指南,为我国广大糖尿病患儿治疗提供依据。Objective To evaluate the quality of clinical evidence-based guidelines for diabetes in children and adolescents, and to compare the differences in drug treatment between the guidelines, so as to provide references for clinicians and pharmacists. Methods China National Knowledge Infrastucture, Wanfang Data, VIP, CBM database, PubMed database, Excerpta Medica Database and relevant websites such as medlive.cn, GIN, AAP, NGC, NICE were searched by computer ranged from the beginning of the database to the end of December 2018. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREEⅡ) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of clinical evidence-based guidelines for diabetes in children and adolescents for the sake of the comparison of recommendations on drug therapy. Results A total of four guidelines were included respectively from the United States AAP, International ISPAD, Malaysia MaHTAS and the United Kingdom NICE. The overall quality of the guidelines was relatively high. Among these guidelines, the quality of MaHTAS and NICE were rated A, while the quality of AAP and ISPAD guidelines were rated B. In all fields,“clarity of presentation” and “scope and purpose” scored well,but the scores of “rigor of development” and “applicability” were relatively low. The drug recommendations in each guideline were basically consistency. Conclusion The quality of inclusion guidelines is relatively high. There is still a lack of evidence-based clinical guidelines for children with diabetes in China. It is suggested that evidence-based methods should be adopted to formulate evidence-based guidelines in line with China′s national conditions so as to provide a basis for the treatment of diabetic children in China.

关 键 词：糖尿病 临床指南 儿童 青少年 指南研究与评价 

分 类 号：R587.1[医药卫生—内分泌]