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.

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

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

Objective:To investigate the awareness of clinical practice guidelines (referred to as "guidelines") and experts consensus (referred to as "consensus") among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff, and to analyze the effectiveness of the ninth guideline methodology workshop.Methods:Self-designed survey questionnaires were used to conduct two surveys among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff who participated in the ninth guideline methodology workshop held in Chengdu from Jannuary 10 to 11, 2025, both before and after the training, to assess their awareness and knowledge of guideline and consensus development methodology. The effectiveness of the training was evaluated using the paired chi-square test.Results:A total of 77 peoples (95.06%), who participated in the ninth guideline methodology workshop, completed the survey questionnaires both before and after the training. One-third of the respondents reported a relatively good to very good understanding of guideline and consensus development. The overall methodology of the guidelines and consensus they had participated in developing still showed room for improvement. After the methodology training, the score rate for each test question significantly increased compared to before the training ( P<0.05), and the distribution trend of the total scores changed markedly (Before the training, 71 people scored less than 60 points, 4 people scored 60 points, and 2 people scored 70 points. After the training, only 1 person scored less than 60 points, 1 person scored 60 points, and 75 people scored between 70 and 100 points, of which 21 people scored 100 points). Conclusion:The awareness of guideline and consensus development methodology among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff still has room for improvement. The guideline methodology workshop can enhance participants′ mastery of guideline and consensus development methodology.

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.

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.

Objective:To investigate the awareness of clinical practice guidelines (referred to as "guidelines") and experts consensus (referred to as "consensus") among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff, and to analyze the effectiveness of the ninth guideline methodology workshop.Methods:Self-designed survey questionnaires were used to conduct two surveys among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff who participated in the ninth guideline methodology workshop held in Chengdu from Jannuary 10 to 11, 2025, both before and after the training, to assess their awareness and knowledge of guideline and consensus development methodology. The effectiveness of the training was evaluated using the paired chi-square test.Results:A total of 77 peoples (95.06%), who participated in the ninth guideline methodology workshop, completed the survey questionnaires both before and after the training. One-third of the respondents reported a relatively good to very good understanding of guideline and consensus development. The overall methodology of the guidelines and consensus they had participated in developing still showed room for improvement. After the methodology training, the score rate for each test question significantly increased compared to before the training ( P<0.05), and the distribution trend of the total scores changed markedly (Before the training, 71 people scored less than 60 points, 4 people scored 60 points, and 2 people scored 70 points. After the training, only 1 person scored less than 60 points, 1 person scored 60 points, and 75 people scored between 70 and 100 points, of which 21 people scored 100 points). Conclusion:The awareness of guideline and consensus development methodology among otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery medical staff still has room for improvement. The guideline methodology workshop can enhance participants′ mastery of guideline and consensus development methodology.

The essence of clinical practice guidelines lies in their recommendations. It is common to find strong recommendations supported by low-quality evidence in current published guidelines. There is a typical misunderstanding among medical professionals that without high-quality evidence, it is impossible to develop high-quality guidelines or only expert consensus can be developed. Based on the GRADE approach, this paper explains the concept and clinical significance of low-quality evidence, and introduces the methods for formulating recommendations based on low-quality evidence in guidelines, with the aim to provide reference for guideline developers and users in China.

Expert evidence, expert opinion, and expert consensus are frequently mentioned and used in the process of guideline development. However, due to the lack of clear definitions and standards, there is confusion and misuse among the three in practice. This paper clarifies the meanings, current status, differences, and connections of expert evidence, expert opinion, and expert consensus in the development of guidelines, aiming to provide a reference for guideline developers in China.