首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

中国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量分析
引用本文:王子君,周奇,邢丹,杨楠,罗旭飞,张静怡,史乾灵,赵思雅,刘辉,刘萧,李沁原,杜亮,杨克虎,陈耀龙. 中国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量分析[J]. 协和医学杂志, 2021, 12(2): 260-267. DOI: 10.12290/xhyxzz.20200250
作者姓名:王子君  周奇  邢丹  杨楠  罗旭飞  张静怡  史乾灵  赵思雅  刘辉  刘萧  李沁原  杜亮  杨克虎  陈耀龙
作者单位:1.兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心,兰州 730000
基金项目:国家重点研发计划2018YFC1705500
摘    要:目的 调查中国临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量现状.方法 系统检索万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文期刊服务平台和中国知网3个中文数据库,对国内临床实践指南/共识解读类文献报告质量进行分析,从文献标题、摘要、背景、指南制订方法、指南推荐意见、优势与局限性、对当地指南制订与临床研究的意义、传播与实施8个方面分析解读类文献...

关 键 词:临床实践指南  共识  解读  报告质量
收稿时间:2020-09-21

Reporting Quality of Literature Interpreting Clinical Practice Guidelines/Consensus: A Cross-sectional Study
Abstract:  Objective  To investigate and analyze the status of the reporting quality of Chinese literature interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensus.  Methods  Based on electronic databases of Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from their inception to March 28, 2018, we analyzed the reporting quality of Chinese literature interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensus including basic information, title, abstract, background, method of guideline development, recommendation, strengths, limitations, dissemination and implementation, and implications for local guideline development and clinical research.  Results  A total of 1593 articles interpreting clinical practice guidelines/consensuses were included in our study. Only 6 articles (0.4%) reported the participation of experts of guideline development or evidence-based methodology; 17 articles (1.1%) reported the methodological background of interpreters; 6 articles (0.4%) contacted with the authors of the guideline/consensus; 13 articles (0.8%) reported the background of the usage environment of the guideline/consensus. Fewer articles reported the establish of guideline development group (65, 4.1%), the identification of clinical questions (20, 1.3%), the method of collecting evidence (72, 4.5%), the method of reaching consensus (53, 3.3%), the resources of funding (30, 1.9%), and the conflict of interest (3, 0.2%). In terms of significance and value of interpreting literature, 106 articles (6.7%) reported implications for future research; 296 articles (16.9%) reported the significance for clinical practice in China.  Conclusions  At present, although there is a large volume of literature interpreting guidelines/consensus in China, the overall reporting situation is not optimistic, which is reflected from incomplete interpretation of key information, lack of methodologists, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest. We suggest that future researchers should develop regulations on interpretation of guidelines/consensus to improve the reporting quality and promote the dissemination and implementation of guidelines.
Keywords:
点击此处可从《协和医学杂志》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《协和医学杂志》下载免费的PDF全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号