Report Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines of Rehabilitation Based on RIGHT
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2020.02.006
- VernacularTitle:基于 RIGHT康复临床实践指南报告质量研究
- Author:
Zi-jun WANG
1
;
Ling WANG
1
;
Xuan YU
2
;
Qi ZHOU
3
;
Qian-ling SHI
3
;
Si-ya ZHAO
4
;
Yang-qin XUN
1
;
Xian-zhuo ZHANG
3
;
Nan YANG
1
;
Xiu-e SHI
5
;
Yao-long CHEN
1
;
Ke-hu YANG
1
Author Information
1. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
2. WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
3. the First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University,Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
4. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
5. Rehabilitation Center Hospital of Gansu, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
rehabilitation medicine;
clinical practice guidelines;
Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare;
quality of reporting
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2020;26(2):161-169
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the quality of reporting of clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation.Methods A comprehensive retrieve was performed in electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang data, etc., from January 1, 2017 to January 11, 2020. Supplementary searches had been done on relevant websites. Two researchers reviewed literatures and assessed the reporting quality independently by using Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT), and any disagreements needed to be discussed in a consensus meeting.Results A total of 16 guidelines were included, with an average reporting rate of (44.8±27.9)%. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, basic information was reported the highest (57.3%), and evidence (31.3%) and other information (31.3%) was the lowest. The reporting rate was less as the guidelines published in China than in foreign contries (OR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.56-1.16), in original version than in update version (OR = 0.79, 95%CI 0.54-1.16); and higher as developed by various societies or associations than developed by non-societies or associations (OR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.82-1.61), however, no statistically significant difference was found in above comparisons.Conclusion Current clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation reported with low quality. It is proposed that future guideline developers should report guidelines after RIGHT statements, including key information and content, in order to improve the quality of reporting guidelines.
