Nomier Mohamed, Khamis Assem M, Ali Ahmed, Daou Karim N, Semaan Aline T, Diab Maya, Akl Elie A
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Int J Clin Pract. 2018 Jul;72(7):e13083. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13083. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
A transparent and explicit reporting on authors' contributions to the development of clinical practice guidelines and on panelists' characteristics is essential for their credibility and trustworthiness. We did not find published studies on authorship or panel involvement in clinical practice guidelines.
To describe the approach to authorship in reports of clinical practice guidelines, and the characteristics of individual authors.
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of guidelines listed in the National Guideline Clearing House (NGC) in 2016. We abstracted data on the general characteristics of the guidelines, report approach to authorship, and individual authors characteristics. Data abstraction was in duplicate and independent manner using standardised form. Data analyses were both descriptive and regression analyses.
Overall, 139 eligible guidelines with published papers were identified. Of these, 48 (35%) included a group authorship statement in the author byline. A third of these guidelines (n = 45; 32%) reported on authors' contributions, while about half of the guidelines (n = 74; 53%) reported who of the authors served as panel members. Around one-fifth of the guidelines (n = 30; 22%) reported group membership (eg, content expert, patient representative) for at least 1 author. Less than one-seventh of the eligible guidelines indicated who selected the panel members (n = 18; 13%), reported the types of panel members (n = 18; 13%) or the selection criteria (n = 12; 9%). Higher journal impact factor was associated with both "reporting of the author contributions" (OR = 1.07) and "the inclusion of a panel membership section in the guideline report" (OR = 1.21).
Low percentages of clinical practice guidelines report information on important aspects of authorship and characteristics of individual authors. Better reporting of some of these criteria was associated with journal impact factor.
对作者在临床实践指南制定过程中的贡献以及专家组成员的特征进行透明、明确的报告，对于指南的可信度和可靠性至关重要。我们未找到关于临床实践指南作者身份或专家组成员参与情况的已发表研究。
描述临床实践指南报告中的作者身份认定方法以及各作者的特征。
我们对2016年国家指南资料库（NGC）中列出的指南进行了横断面调查。我们提取了关于指南的一般特征、作者身份报告方法以及各作者特征的数据。数据提取采用标准化表格，以重复且独立的方式进行。数据分析包括描述性分析和回归分析。
总体而言，共识别出139篇有发表论文的合格指南。其中，48篇（35%）在作者署名中包含团体作者声明。这些指南中有三分之一（n = 45；32%）报告了作者的贡献，约一半的指南（n = 74；53%）报告了哪些作者担任专家组成员。约五分之一的指南（n = 30；22%）报告了至少一位作者的团体成员身份（如内容专家、患者代表）。不到七分之一的合格指南指明了谁选择了专家组成员（n = 18；13%）、报告了专家组成员的类型（n = 18；13%）或选择标准（n = 12；9%）。较高的期刊影响因子与“作者贡献的报告”（OR = 1.07）和“指南报告中包含专家组成员部分”（OR = 1.21）均相关。
临床实践指南中报告作者身份重要方面及各作者特征的比例较低。其中一些标准的更好报告与期刊影响因子相关。
