Scientific, transparent and applicable rankings of Chinese guidelines and consensus of rehabilitation medicine published in medical journals in 2022
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2023.12.001
- VernacularTitle:2022年医学期刊发表中国康复医学指南和共识的科学性、透明性和适用性评级
- Author:
Xiaoxie LIU
1
;
Hongling CHU
2
;
Mei LIU
3
;
Aixin GUO
3
;
Siyuan WANG
3
;
Fanshuo ZENG
3
;
Shan JIANG
3
;
Yuxiao XIE
4
;
Mouwang ZHOU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
2. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
3. Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist Committee of the STAR Working Groups, Beijing 100191, China
4. WHO-FICs Collaborating Center in China, Beijing 100068, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
rehabilitation medicine;
guidelines;
consensus;
evaluation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2023;29(12):1365-1376
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo evaluate the Chinese guidelines and consensus of rehabilitation medicine published in the medical journals in 2022 using Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR). MethodsGuidelines and consensus which were developed by Chinese institutions or led by Chinese scholars were retrieved in databases of CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, Chinese Medical Journal Network, PubMed and Web of Science, in 2022, followed by screening for rehabilitation medicine field. The literature were rated with STAR. ResultsSeven guidelines and eleven consensuses were included. The STAR scores ranged from 11.7 to 69.6, with a median score of 25.9 and mean score of 28.3. There was a significant difference in the total score between guidelines and consensus (U = 12.000, P = 0.014). The score ratio was high in the domains of recommendations (73.6%), evidence (39.5%) and others (33.3%), while it was low in the domains of protocol (1.4%), clinical questions (12.5%) and conflicts of interest (13.9%). The score ratio was high in the items of listing the institutional affiliations of all individuals involved in developing the guideline (94.4%), identifying the references for evidence supporting the main recommendations (94.4%), indicating the considerations (e.g., adverse effects) in clinical practice when implementing the recommendations (88.9%), and making the recommendations clearly identifiable, e.g., in a table, or using enlarged or bold fonts (75%); and it was low in the items of describing the role of funder(s) in the guideline development (0), indicating information about the evaluation and management of conflicts of interest (0), providing tailored editions of the guidelines for different groups of target users (0), presenting the guideline or recommendations visually, such as with figures or videos (0), providing details of the guideline protocol (2.8%), assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the included studies (2.8%), describing the responsibilities of all individuals or sub-groups involved in developing the guideline (5.6%), indicating how the clinical questions were selected and sorted (5.6%), formating clinical questions in PICO or other formats (5.6%), making the guideline accessible through multiple platforms (5.6%), and declaring that the funder(s) did not influence the guideline's recommendations (8.3%). ConclusionThe quality of current clinical practice guidelines and consensus of rehabilitation medicine is poor, which should be developed in accordance with the relevant standards.
