Quality evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses on blood transfusion and blood utilization in china
10.13303/j.cjbt.issn.1004-549x.2026.07.021
- VernacularTitle:中国输血及用血领域临床实践指南/专家共识的方法学与报告质量评价
- Author:
Yumei YANG
1
;
Yuting WU
1
;
Yu TIAN
2
;
Weifeng DING
3
;
Jiaying WANG
2
;
Lei YANG
4
;
Aiyuan DU
4
;
Xiaofeng PAN
5
;
Xiaoshan LI
6
;
Rong GAO
1
;
Tingting WANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Wuxi People's Hospital, Wuxi Medical Center of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China
2. Office of Drug Clinical Trial Institution, Wuxi People's Hospital, Wuxi Medical Center of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China
3. Medical Laboratory Department of Nantong University Affiliated Hospital, Nantong 226001, China
4. Department of Hematology, Wuxi People's Hospital, Wuxi Medical Center of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China
5. Library, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
6. Lung Transplantation Center, Wuxi People's Hospital, Wuxi Medical Center of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
blood transfusion and blood use (BTBU);
clinical practice guidelines;
expert consensus;
STAR;
AGREE Ⅱ;
RIGHT
- From:
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion
2026;39(7):952-962
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines or expert consensus on blood transfusion and blood use (BTBU) in China (hereinafter referred to as "guidelines/consensus"), providing reference for the development and updating of future BTBU guidelines/consensus. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Chinese databases such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Data-base, relevant guideline release platforms, and professional association websites. BTBU-related guidelines/consensus published between January 2006 and December 2025 were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, after completing literature screening and data extraction, three evaluators independently assessed the quality of the included literature using the Scientificity, Transparency, and Applicability of Guidelines Rating Tool (STAR), the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ), and the International Practice Guideline Reporting Standards (RIGHT). Results: A total of 29 documents were included, including 5 guidelines, 22 consensus statements, and 2 protocols. The results of the STAR assessment showed that the total score was (21.7±8.8)%. The domain score ratios for registration, research protocol, funding, working group, conflict of interest, clinical question, evidence, consensus method, recommendation, accessibility and other domains were (2.2±12.1)%, 0, (36.7±25.1)%, (18.3±7.6)%, (19.2±15.3)%, (16.6±23.1)%, (15.1±6.3)%, (9.6±21.2)%, (54.3±18.4)%, (31.7±10.4)% and (10.3±31.0)%, respectively. For the AGREE Ⅱ assessment, the methodological quality of 26 articles was rated Grade B and 3 articles Grade C. The results of the RIGHT assessment indicated that the overall reporting rate of all guidelines/consensuses was (65.3±4.0)%. Conclusion: The methodological and reporting quality of current expert guidelines/consensus on BTBU in China still need improvement, and guidelines and consensus should be strictly formulated and standardized according to the standards of STAR, AGREE II and RIGHT.
