Development Status and Quality Evaluation on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Dominant Diseases with Chinese Patent Medicines
10.13288/j.11-2166/r.2024.06.014
- VernacularTitle:中成药治疗优势病种临床应用指南研制现状及质量评价
- Author:
Jiang YANG
1
;
Hulei ZHAO
2
;
Yaolong CHEN
3
;
Jianxin WANG
4
;
Yang XIE
2
;
Suyun LI
2
;
Jiansheng LI
1
;
Minghang WANG
2
Author Information
1. Co-construction Collaborative Innovation Center for Chinese Medicine and Respiratory Diseases by Henan and Education Ministry of P.R. China， Henan University of Chinese Medicine， Zhengzhou， 450046
2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine
3. China Evidence-Based Medicine Center， Lanzhou University
4. Standardization Project Management Office of China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Chinese patent medicine;
dominant diseases;
clinical practice guidelines;
quality evaluation;
STAR
- From:
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine
2024;65(6):636-644
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo analyze the development status and quality of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of dominant diseases with Chinese patent medicines （CPMs）. MethodsDatabases were searched from Jan. 2019 to Dec.2023 to collect the published clinical practice guidelines of CPMs for the treatment of dominant diseases. The information about the title， the participants， clinical problems， outcomes， evidence grade， recommendations， and recommendation strength in the included clinical practice guidelines were collected， for which the development status was analyzed， and the quality was evaluated with the Scientific， Transparent and Applicable Rankings （STAR） tool for clinical practice guidelines. ResultsTotally， 34 guidelines were included， involving 273 kinds of CPMs. One to ten （with the medium five） clinical problems were proposed from 29 clinical practice guidelines respectively. All the guidelines divided the evidence into four grades according to Grade of Recommendation Assessment， Deve-lopement an Evaluation. And 28 guidelines had five levels of recommendation strength. A total of 344 recommendations were extracted， including 86 strong-recommendations， 191 weak-recommendations （including 36 weak recommendations only based on expert consensus） and 67 recommendations with unclear recommendation strength. All guidelines had high scores in the three areas of “clinical questions （94.20%）”， “evidence （91.45%）” and “recommendations （89.06%）”， while the scores in the three areas of “registry （22.06%）”， “protocol （19.00%）” and “accessibility （31.51%）” were low. The STAR recommended stars of 8 guidelines were 5.0~4.0 stars， while that of 18 guidelines were 3.5~2.5 stars， and 8 guidelines were 2.0~1.0 stars. The three guidelines with the highest recommended stars were depressive disorder， community-acquired pneumonia， and influenza in adult. ConclusionThere is a certain gap in the quality of the published clinical practice guidelines of CPMs， and the quality of the guidelines could be further improved in registry， protocols， funds， and accessibility.
