2017年中国大陆期刊发表的临床实践指南的报告质量评价  

Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of China's Mainland in 2017

作　　者：杨钦博 周奇 黄天相 高霞 陈煜 张先卓 杨楠 张静怡[2,3,4,5,8] 陈耀龙 YANG Qinbo;ZHOU Qi;HUANG Tianxiang;GAO Xia;CHEN Yu;ZHANG Xianzhuo;YANG Nan;ZHANG Jingyi;CHEN Yaolong(Department of Nephrology,West China Hospital,Sichuan University,Chengdu 610041,P.R.China;WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;Evidence-based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;GRADE Chinese Center,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;The First Clinical Medical School,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;The Second Clinical Medical School,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China;School of Public Health,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou 730000,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]四川大学华西医院肾脏内科,成都610041 [2]WHO指南实施与知识转化合作中心,兰州730000 [3]兰州大学循证医学中心,基础医学院,兰州730000 [4]甘肃省循证医学与临床转化重点实验室,兰州730000 [5]GRADE中国中心,兰州730000 [6]兰州大学第一临床医学院,兰州730000 [7]兰州大学第二临床医学院,兰州730000 [8]兰州大学公共卫生学院,兰州730000

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2019年第11期1325-1332,共8页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

基　　金：国家重点研发计划项目(编号：2018YFC1705500)

摘　　要：目的评价2017年中国大陆期刊发表的临床实践指南(以下简称指南)的报告质量。方法计算机检索CNKI、CBM和WanFang Data数据库,同时补充检索医脉通数据库,检索时限均为2017年1月1日至2017年12月31日。由2名评价员独立筛选文献并交叉核对,采用实践指南报告工具RIGHT清单对纳入指南的报告质量进行评价。结果最终纳入107篇指南,RIGHT清单总的报告率为34.8%±0.1%。在RIGHT的7大领域中,基本信息领域(56.8%)的报告率最高,评审和质量保证领域(9.3%)的报告率最低。相比之下,中国科学引文数据库(Chinese Science Citation Database,CSCD)收录的指南对RIGHT清单条目的平均报告率低于非CSCD指南[MD=-0.73,95%CI(-0.78,-0.68)];中华医学会系列杂志(Chinese Medical Association,CMA)发表的指南对RIGHT清单条目的平均报告率高于非中华医学会系列杂志发表的指南[MD=2.30,95%CI(2.26,2.34)];由各类学会或协会制订的指南对RIGHT清单条目平均报告率低于非学会或协会制订的指南[MD=-3.78,95%CI(-3.83,-3.73)];中医领域指南对RIGHT清单条目平均报告率高于西医领域指南[MD=21.94,95%CI(21.91,21.97)]。结论 2017年中国大陆期刊发表的指南报告质量总体不佳,尤其体现在评审和质量保证、资助与利益冲突声明和管理、指南获取途径及局限性等其他方面的报告。建议指南制订者严格按照国际标准进行指南的制订和报告,从而提高临床实践指南的质量。Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2017. Methods CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for articles published in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare(RIGHT). Results One hundred and seven clinical practice guidelines were included and a total reporting rate of 34.8%±0.1% in RIGHT. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, field on basic information had the highest reporting rate(56.8%) and fields on review and quality assurance had the lowest reporting rate(9.3%).The average reporting rate of RIGHT items of Chinese Science Citation Database(CSCD) articles was lower than non-CSCD [MD=-0.73, 95%CI(-0.78,-0.68)] articles. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items differed between Chinese Medical Association(CMA) journal articles and non-CMA journal articles[MD=2.30, 95%CI(2.26, 2.34)]. The average reporting rates of RIGHT items was lower in guidelines established by associations or institutes [MD=-3.78, 95%CI(-3.83,-3.73)], and was higher reported in Chinese medicine guidelines[MD=21.94, 95%CI(21.91, 21.97)]. Conclusions The reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in journals of China's Mainland in 2017 is low in general, especially in fields such as review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests and other information. To improve this phenomena, it is suggested that guideline developers report the guidelines rigorously with international standard.

关 键 词：RIGHT 临床实践指南 报告质量 

分 类 号：R[医药卫生]