Balduzzi Alberto, Carrano Francesco Maria, Falck-Ytter Yngve, Tarik Kani Haluk, Levink Iris, Maeda Yasuko, Marafini Irene, Sayers Adele
General Surgery Unit, Pederzoli Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, St Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
United European Gastroenterol J. 2025 Mar;13(2):268-275. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.70000. Epub 2025 Feb 28.
Clinical guidelines are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. Little is known about clinicians' knowledge of guideline development and how they perceive guideline quality.
A survey protocol was designed according to the CHERRIES (improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) checklist. The survey explored three main aspects: high-quality markers of guidelines, knowledge of guideline development, and areas for improvement. The survey was conducted by contacting UEG and affiliated societies by email and via social media. All valid answers to each question were counted.
A total of 585 participants responded during the 3-month period. Some 65.8% were aged between 30 and 60 years, and 75.4% were doctors. The most important perceived quality indicators within a guideline were 'clear and actionable recommendations (97%)', followed by 'based on systematic literature review' (96%), and 'transparent methodology' (90%). 230 (39.3%) respondents were previously involved in clinical guideline development. However, the experience of working with a methodologist (18.8%) and using well-established guideline checklists (AGREE-II [21.0%]), RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice guidelines in HealThcare) (9.9%) were limited. Just under half of the responders (289, 49.4%) were familiar with the GRADE methodology. Apps (78.5%), webinars (73.8%), and short videos (68.2%) were popular tools to access clinical guidelines. Over 90% of responders stated that the reputation of the journal (92%) and the name of the society involved in guideline development (91%) were important. Two-thirds of the responders preferred to see abridged versions of guidelines and 69.2% preferred freely accessible or open access guidelines.
Consumers are keen to read clear and actionable guidelines that are developed transparently. There is a gap in guideline development knowledge. Initiatives by medical journals and professional societies are important to ensure the development of accessible and robust clinical guidelines.
临床指南是循证医学的基石。对于临床医生对指南制定的了解程度以及他们对指南质量的看法,我们知之甚少。
根据CHERRIES(提高网络调查质量:互联网电子调查结果报告清单)清单设计了一项调查方案。该调查探讨了三个主要方面:指南的高质量标志、指南制定知识以及改进领域。通过电子邮件和社交媒体联系UEG及其附属学会来开展此项调查。对每个问题的所有有效答案进行计数。
在3个月的调查期内,共有585名参与者做出回应。约65.8%的参与者年龄在30至60岁之间,75.4%为医生。指南中被认为最重要的质量指标是“清晰且可操作的建议(97%)”,其次是“基于系统的文献综述”(96%)和“方法透明”(90%)。230名(39.3%)受访者此前参与过临床指南的制定。然而,与方法学家合作的经验(18.8%)以及使用成熟的指南核对清单(AGREE-II[21.0%])、RIGHT(医疗卫生实践指南报告项目)(9.9%)的情况有限。不到一半的受访者(289名,49.4%)熟悉GRADE方法。应用程序(78.5%)、网络研讨会(73.8%)和短视频(68.2%)是获取临床指南的常用工具。超过90%的受访者表示,期刊的声誉(92%)和参与指南制定的学会名称(91%)很重要。三分之二的受访者更喜欢阅读指南的简略版本,69.2%的受访者更喜欢可免费获取或开放获取的指南。
消费者渴望阅读以透明方式制定的清晰且可操作的指南。在指南制定知识方面存在差距。医学期刊和专业学会的举措对于确保制定出易于获取且可靠的临床指南很重要。