Quality assessment of guidelines/consensuses on traditional Chinese medicine/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
- VernacularTitle:非酒精性脂肪性肝病中医/中西医结合诊疗指南/共识的质量评价
- Author:
Ruimin JIAO
1
;
Jingjie ZHAO
1
;
Juanjuan LI
1
;
Wei CHEN
2
;
Chaoru HAN
1
;
Li LI
3
;
Chunjun XU
3
;
Hong YOU
4
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Medicine， Chinese Traditional; Integrated Traditional Chinese Medicine & Western Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Consensus
- From: Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2025;41(3):446-452
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of published guidelines/consensuses on traditional Chinese medicine （TCM）/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease （NAFLD）， and to provide a basis for formulating guidelines/consensuses on TCM/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of NAFLD in the future. MethodsDatabases including PubMed， Embase， Web of Science， CNKI， Wanfang Data， and CBM and the websites of China Association of Chinese Medicine and China Association of Integrative Medicine were searched for related articles published up to September 1， 2024. Two clinical researchers independently assessed the methodological quality and reporting quality of the guidelines/consensuses on TCM/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of NAFLD by using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ （AGREE Ⅱ） and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare （RIGHT）. ResultsA total of nine guidelines/consensuses were included after literature screening， with four guidelines and five expert consensuses. The scores of different domains assessed by AGREE Ⅱ for the nine guidelines/consensuses were as follows： scope and purpose （47.1%）， stakeholder involvement （41.0%）， rigor of development （21.6%）， clarity of presentation （40.2%）， applicability （19.0%）， and editorial independence （19.6%）. The recommendation level of the articles was B level （recommended after revision） for four articles and C level （not recommended） for five articles. The RIGHT assessment showed high reporting rates for “Basic Information” and “Background”， while other areas needed to be improved. Currently， there was no international standard for the guidelines/consensuses on TCM/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of NAFLD， and the quality of these guidelines/consensuses needed to be enhanced to ensure comprehensiveness and credibility. ConclusionThere is still potential for improving the quality of guidelines/consensuses on TCM/integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine diagnosis and treatment of NAFLD， and AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT checklists should be strictly followed to ensure the fairness， scientific rigor， and transparency of these guidelines/consensuses.
