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.

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

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.