To develop a guideline terminology system and promote its standardization, thereby enhancing medical staff's accurate understanding and correct application of guidelines.

OBJECTIVE To assess the scientific rigor， clarity and feasibility of the recommendations of the Guidelines for Evidence-based Use of Biological Agents for the Clinical Treatment of Osteoporosis （hereinafter referred to as the Guideline） through external review， in order to further revise and improve the Guideline recommendations. METHODS This study employed a cross-sectional survey research design， a convenience sampling method was adopted to select frontline medical workers in the field of osteoporosis （including clinical doctors， clinical pharmacists， and nurses） as well as patients or their family members. External review was conducted through a combination of closed-ended and open-ended electronic questionnaires to get feedback from them on the appreciation，clarity and feasibility of the 32 preliminary recommendations in the Guideline. RESULTS A total of 90 external review subjects from 15 hospitals were collected， including 45 clinical doctors， 15 clinical pharmacists， 15 nurses and 15 patients or their family members. The overall appreciation degree of recommendations was 99.38%， the overall clarity degree of recommendations was 98.92%， and the overall feasibility degree of recommendations was 99.65%. At the same time， 111 subjective suggestions were collected， which provided an important reference for the further improvement of the Guideline recommendations. Based on the above feedback， the Guideline steering committee and core expert group revised the wording of 12 draft recommendations without deletion， and finally determined 32 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS The external review provides an important basis for the final formation of the Guideline， further improves the scientific rigor， clarity and feasibility of the recommendations， and ensures the standardization， practicality and implementability of the Guideline.

To introduce and analyze guideline terminology related to clinical question formulation, evidence retrieval and appraisal, and recommendation development.

BACKGROUND: The STAR (Scientific, Transparent, and Applicable Rankings) working group conducts regular evaluations of Chinese guidelines and consensus statements. This study gathered insights from STAR working group members using qualitative interviews. METHODS: From March to August 2023, members of the STAR specialist committees were interviewed using semi-structured interview outline. The interviewees were selected through purpose-based sampling. Subject analysis was employed to summarize the findings. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 37 members from 36 committees and summarized the contents into four main themes and 16 specific topics. The value of STAR in enhancing the development and selection of high-quality guidelines in China was commonly mentioned. Challenges identified included the lack of resources and suboptimal organizational structures, collaboration, and evaluation efficiency. Suggestions for the STAR tool included developing extensions for different guideline types, adjusting certain items, and better covering guideline applicability. The promotion of STAR and the consideration of an international committee for global outreach were also highlighted. CONCLUSION STAR has exerted a substantial influence on the evaluation of Chinese guidelines, and the insights gained from interviews offer valuable directions for its further enhancement.
Humans ; China ; Qualitative Research ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Interviews as Topic

Expert consensus, as an important supplement to clinical practice guidelines, supports clinical decision-making when evidence is lacking or controversial. Compared to clinical practice guidelines, the presentation of expert consensus is more diverse. Currently, there are no reporting guidelines for expert consensus in clinical and public health decision-making. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist is the most commonly used international guideline reporting standard, and is often referred to when writing expert consensus. However, the RIGHT checklist does not include a section on consensus formation methods; while the ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) checklist includes reporting requirements for consensus formation methods, but not for reporting recommendations. Therefore, this article integrates the RIGHT and ACCORD reporting checklists and proposes an integrated reporting framework (TIMER-DO) to help authors combine these two commonly used international reporting standards and complete the standardized reporting of expert consensus.

To explore the role of the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" column and others in the Medical Joumnal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (Med J PUMCH) in promoting diseiplinary development.

The real-time Delphi method represents a refinement of the classical Delphi technique, designed to overcome limitations such as prolonged study duration and delayed feedback during consensus development. This article, building upon the classical Delphi foundation, systematically elaborates on the application process, advantages, and limitations of the real-time Delphi method. It further presents currently available websites or software capable of facilitating real-time Delphi exercises and offers considerations and recommendations for its application in guideline development, aiming to serve as a reference for relevant researchers.