To systematically analyzed the reporting status of core elements in publicly available clinical practice guideline(hereafter referred to as "guideline") protocols published domestically and internationally over the past decade, identified existing problems, and provided evidence to inform the standardized writing and publication of future guideline protocols.

The importance of consensus research in medical decision-making has become increasinglyprominent. However, this field has long lacked unified terminology definitions and reporting standards, leading to significant heterogeneity in study design, implementation, and result presentation that affects the credibility and reproducibility of outcomes. The ACCurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) in the field of biomedical research provides a structured writing framework for various consensus methods such as the Delphi method and nominal group technique, aiming to enhance the completeness and transparency of study reports. Combined with specific cases, this article interprets the core items of ACCORD, offering references for the design, implementation, and reporting of high-quality consensus research in China.

Health economics evidence plays an important role in linking clinical value evidence with health resource allocation decisions in the development of clinical practice guidelines. It can not only effectively balance clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility but also avoid forming "idealized" recommendations that are detached from the affordability of the healthcare system or the burden-bearing capacity of patients. To promote guideline developers to use health economics evidence more standardizedly and fully, this paper conducts an in-depth analysis of the current application status, existing challenges, access channels, and application processes of health economics evidence in current guidelines, and on this basis, puts forward considerations and suggestions for strengthening and standardizing the application of health economics evidence in China's clinical practice guidelines.

This study explores methodological issues in the design， evaluation， and reporting of randomized controlled trials （RCTs） under the concept of "syndrome dominating disease". The discussion focuses on key aspects including the adaptability of trial design， the screening of research participants， the standardization of syndrome differentiation， the balance between intervention individualization and standardization， the integration of multi-dimensional outcome measures， and the limitations of existing evaluation and reporting tools when applied to this type of research， along with corresponding recommendations and future perspectives. Regarding research design， it is recommended to select or draw upon innovative design concepts such as basket trials and subgroup-based dynamic/static parallel-group designs， in order to innovate the design format of RCTs. Meanwhile， criteria for participant screening， TCM syndrome differentiation， and disease classification should be standardized. The balance should be appropriately achieved between intervention individualization and standardization， and a multidimensional assessment system encompassing TCM syndromes， disease-specific outcomes， and patient-reported outcomes should be established. For risk of bias assessment and research reporting， it is recommended，to develop specialized assessment and reporting tools based on existing instruments， in order to standardize the assessment and reporting of study findings. Future research may further explore the potential applications of artificial intelligence in the study design， risk-of-bias assessment， and reporting quality assessment of RCTs based on the "syndrome dominating disease" model， with a particular focus on methodological optimization， data integration， and enhancement of research quality.

This study explores methodological issues in the design， evaluation， and reporting of randomized controlled trials （RCTs） under the concept of "syndrome dominating disease". The discussion focuses on key aspects including the adaptability of trial design， the screening of research participants， the standardization of syndrome differentiation， the balance between intervention individualization and standardization， the integration of multi-dimensional outcome measures， and the limitations of existing evaluation and reporting tools when applied to this type of research， along with corresponding recommendations and future perspectives. Regarding research design， it is recommended to select or draw upon innovative design concepts such as basket trials and subgroup-based dynamic/static parallel-group designs， in order to innovate the design format of RCTs. Meanwhile， criteria for participant screening， TCM syndrome differentiation， and disease classification should be standardized. The balance should be appropriately achieved between intervention individualization and standardization， and a multidimensional assessment system encompassing TCM syndromes， disease-specific outcomes， and patient-reported outcomes should be established. For risk of bias assessment and research reporting， it is recommended，to develop specialized assessment and reporting tools based on existing instruments， in order to standardize the assessment and reporting of study findings. Future research may further explore the potential applications of artificial intelligence in the study design， risk-of-bias assessment， and reporting quality assessment of RCTs based on the "syndrome dominating disease" model， with a particular focus on methodological optimization， data integration， and enhancement of research quality.

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.

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.

Objective:To determine the clinical issues in the Clinical practice guidelines for postoperative pain management in adults (2024 edition). Methods:A preliminary list of clinical issues for the guidelines was developed through literature review, clinical surveys, and expert interviews. This was followed by two rounds of Delphi questionnaire surveys, with quality control and statistical analysis conducted using expert positive coefficient, mean item scores, full score ratio, coefficient of variation, Cronbach′s α coefficient, and expert authority level to finalize the list of clinical issues.Results:The experts participating in the Delphi questionnaire surveys had multidisciplinary collaborative backgrounds and regional representativeness, with a high level of authority. The overall positive coefficient of expert participation in the surveys was 78.9%. Through two rounds of the Delphi method and based on the screening criteria of a mean score ≥3.5, coefficient of variation ≤30%, and full score ratio ≥30%, 17 clinical issues were ultimately included following an expert consensus meeting.Conclusions:Through the Delphi method and rigorous quality control, the clinical issues in the Clinical practice guidelines for postoperative pain management in adults (2024 edition) are determined, laying a foundation for the subsequent development of the guidelines.

Objective To sort,summarize,and introduce key terms related to guideline reporting,evaluation,dissemination,implementation,and updating.Methods We systematically searched guideline de-velopment manuals and methodological literature from database inception to October 25,2024.Terms related to guideline reporting,updating,evaluation,and implementation were extracted,standardized,and finalized through a structured consensus process.Results A total of 13 guideline manuals and 32 methodological articles were included,yielding 14 core terms with standardized definitions.Conclusions This article introduces key terms such as reporting standards,external review,and research gaps across guideline development phases to promote concept application and deepen readers'understanding of guideline 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