Yang Yongjie, Lu Jingli, Ma Yanfang, Xi Chen, Kang Jian, Zhang Qiwen, Jia Xuedong, Liu Kefeng, Du Shuzhang, Kocher Florian, Seeber Andreas, Gridelli Cesare, Provencio Mariano, Seki Nobuhiko, Tomita Yusuke, Zhang Xiaojian
Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021 Jun;10(6):2588-2602. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-21-405.
In recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for lung cancer has increased, but the quality of these guidelines has not been systematically assessed so far. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of CPGs on lung cancer published since 2018 using the International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) instrument.
We systematically searched the major electronic literature databases, guideline databases and medical society websites from January 2018 to November 2020 to identify all CPGs for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The search and extraction were completed using standardized forms. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. We present the results descriptively, including a stratification by selected determinants.
A total of 49 CPGs were included. The mean proportion across the guidelines of the 22 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported was 57.9%. The items most common to be poorly reported were quality assurance (item 17) and description of the role of funders (item 18b), both of which were reported in only one guideline. The proportions of items within each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist that were correctly reported were Basic information 75.9%; background 83.2%; evidence 44.5%; recommendations 55.4%; review and quality assurance 12.2%; funding and declaration and management of interests 42.9%; and other information 38.1%. The reporting quality of guidelines did not differ between publication years. CPGs published in journals with impact factor >30 tended to be best reported.
Our results revealed that reporting in CPGs for lung cancer is suboptimal. Particularly the declaration of funding and quality assurance are poorly reported in recent CPGs on lung cancer.
近年来，肺癌临床实践指南（CPG）的数量有所增加，但目前尚未对这些指南的质量进行系统评估。我们的目的是使用《医疗保健实践指南国际报告规范》（RIGHT）工具评估2018年以来发表的肺癌CPG的报告质量。
我们系统检索了2018年1月至2020年11月期间的主要电子文献数据库、指南数据库和医学协会网站，以识别所有关于小细胞肺癌和非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）的CPG。检索和提取工作使用标准化表格完成。采用RIGHT声明对纳入指南的质量进行评估。我们以描述性方式呈现结果，包括按选定决定因素进行分层。
共纳入49项CPG。RIGHT清单22项内容在各指南中报告适当的平均比例为57.9%。报告不佳最常见的项目是质量保证（第17项）和资助者作用描述（第18b项），这两项仅在一份指南中有所报告。RIGHT清单七个领域中每个领域正确报告的项目比例分别为：基本信息75.9%；背景83.2%；证据44.5%；推荐意见55.4%；审核与质量保证12.2%；资助以及利益声明与管理42.9%；其他信息38.1%。指南的报告质量在不同出版年份之间没有差异。发表在影响因子>30的期刊上的CPG报告质量往往最佳。
我们的结果显示，肺癌CPG的报告情况并不理想。特别是在近期肺癌CPG中，资助声明和质量保证的报告较差。
