Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, China.
BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):e024315. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024315.
We systematically analysed recommendations from gout guidelines as an example, to provide a basis for developing a reporting standard of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
Systematic review without meta-analysis.
We systematically searched MEDLINE and all relevant guideline websites (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, WHO, Guidelines International Network, DynaMed, UpTodate, Best Practice) from their inception to January 2017 to identify and select gout CPGs. We used search terms such as 'gout', 'hyperuricemia' and 'guideline'. We included the eligible CPGs of gout according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria after screening titles, abstracts and full texts. The characteristics of recommendations reported in the included guidelines were extracted and analysed.
A total of 15 gout guidelines with a range of 5-80 recommendations were retrieved. Several indicators were used in the gout guidelines to facilitate identification of recommendations, including grouping all recommendations in a summary section, formatting recommendations in a particular or special way, using locating words for recommendations and indicating the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We found some components commonly used in the recommendations. The wording of recommendations varied across guidelines. Recommendations were detailed and explained in the section of rationale and explanation of recommendations. In some guidelines, recommendations were accompanied with other material to assist their reporting.
Variability and inconsistency were found on the reporting and presentation of recommendations in gout guidelines. Several points for reporting recommendation can be summarised. First, we suggested summarising and highlighting the core recommendations in a guideline. Second, guideline developers should try to structure and write recommendations reasonably. Third, it was necessary to detail and explain the recommendations and their rationale. Finally, describing and providing other potential useful contents was also a helpful way for clear reporting.
我们系统地分析了痛风指南中的推荐意见,为制定临床实践指南(CPG)推荐意见报告标准提供依据。
系统评价,无荟萃分析。
我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE 和所有相关指南网站(英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所、国家指南联合数据库、苏格兰校际指南网络、世界卫生组织、指南国际网络、DynaMed、UpToDate、最佳实践),从其建立到 2017 年 1 月,以确定和选择痛风 CPG。我们使用了“痛风”、“高尿酸血症”和“指南”等搜索词。经过筛选标题、摘要和全文,我们根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准,纳入了符合条件的痛风 CPG。提取并分析了纳入指南中报告的推荐意见的特征。
共检索到 15 篇痛风指南,推荐意见数量为 5-80 条。痛风指南中使用了几种指标来方便识别推荐意见,包括在总结部分列出所有推荐意见、以特殊方式格式化推荐意见、使用定位词表示推荐意见以及表明推荐意见的强度和证据质量。我们发现一些推荐意见中常用的组件。指南中的推荐意见措辞各不相同。在推荐意见的原理和解释部分,推荐意见详细而有解释。在一些指南中,推荐意见附有其他材料以协助报告。
痛风指南中推荐意见的报告和呈现存在变异性和不一致性。可以总结出报告推荐意见的几个要点。首先,我们建议在指南中总结和突出核心推荐意见。其次,指南制定者应尝试合理地构建和编写推荐意见。第三,详细说明和解释推荐意见及其原理是必要的。最后,描述和提供其他潜在有用的内容也是清晰报告的一种有益方式。