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.

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 evaluate the quality of evidence in the systematic evaluation/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） for diabetes retinopathy （DR） based on the GRADE system. METHODS Chinese and English databases were searched to obtain the relevant studies of systematic evaluation/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of DR. The search time was from the establishment of each database to January 13th， 2024. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria， literature screening was conducted. After extracting relevant information from the included literature， the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality level of the evidence body in the included studies， and the evidence of the outcome indicators was integrated and summarized. RESULTS A total of 51 studies were ultimately included， encompassing 135 outcome indexes. Among these， 19 indicators （14.1%） were of high quality， 87 （64.4%） were of medium quality， 26 （19.3%） were of low quality， and 3 （2.2%） were of very low quality. Overall， the evidence quality of the outcome indicators in the included studies was medium to low quality. The integrated results of evidence on the efficacy of outcome indexes showed that compared with conventional Western medicine， calcium dobesilate or placebo， TCM had significant advantages in improving overall efficacy， reducing bleeding spot area， reducing macular foveal thickness， and increasing visual improvement rate. In addition，the combination of TCM and conventional Western medicine or calcium dobesilate was significantly more effective than using conventional Western medicine or calcium dobesilate alone. CONCLUSIONS The overall quality of the evidence in the systematic evaluation/meta-analysis study on the treatment of DR with TCM is medium to low quality. Based on existing research findings， TCM demonstrates good clinical efficacy in the treatment of DR.

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

Objective To conduct an umbrella review of systematic studies/meta-analyses of anti-vascular endotheli-al growth factor(VEGF)drugs for the treatment of diabetes retinopathy(DR),to evaluate literature quality with AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA,and to show the distribution characteristics of evidence quality through both figures and tables.Methods Chinese and English databases including The Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMbase,CBM,Wanfang,and CNKI were searched on computer from the inception of the database up to March 2024 for the retrieval of systematic reviews/meta-ana-lyses on anti-VEGF drug therapy for DR treatment.Two evaluators read the literature and extract data separately before conducting an umbrella review of the methodological and reporting quality of the included literature using the AMSTAR 2 scale and PRISMA statement.Results 27 studies were ultimately included,and the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on anti-VEGF drugs for DR treatment was moderate-to-low.The evaluation by AM-STAR 2 showed that there was an urgent need to improve the elaboration of the pre-established research plan and funding sources included in the research.PRISMA results showed that items affecting reporting quality mainly included protocol and registration,literature search,supplementary analysis,and funding sources.Conclusion The methodological and repor-ting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on anti-VEGF drug therapy for DR treatment needs to be improved.Re-searchers should strengthen methodological quality and reporting standards following the requirements of the AMSTAR 2 scale and PRISMA statement while writing systematic reviews/meta-analysis reports,so as to provide evidence with higher quality.

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive recommendations for the management of gout in patients with common comorbidities, such as chronic kidney disease(CKD), cardiovascular disease(CVD), diabetes, osteoarthritis(OA), and gastrointestinal disorders. This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of specialists in endocrinology, rheumatology, nephrology, cardiology, gastroenterology, and methodology. The development process adhered to standard methodologies, including PICO(population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) question deconstruction, systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) for evidence and recommendation evaluation, Delphi voting, and expert consensus. The guideline presents 26 evidence-based recommendations addressing 7 clinical questions for patients with hyperuricemia and gout in the context of comorbidities. Key recommendations include the maintenance of strict serum urate targets, particularly for patients with CKD stage≥3, chronic gouty arthritis, and OA, in order to prevent disease progression. In patients with CVD or diabetes, intra-articular triamcinolone is preferred over systemic glucocorticoids. Prioritized anti-inflammatory treatments for patients with CKD, gastrointestinal diseases and OA are recommended. The guideline also introduces emerging therapies, such as interleukin-1 inhibitors and selective urate transport inhibitors, as potential treatment options for refractory cases. The update offers a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to managing gout, particularly in individuals with associated comorbidities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and emerging new treatments and evidence ensure the optimization of the recommendations.

Objective To conduct an umbrella review of systematic studies/meta-analyses of anti-vascular endotheli-al growth factor(VEGF)drugs for the treatment of diabetes retinopathy(DR),to evaluate literature quality with AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA,and to show the distribution characteristics of evidence quality through both figures and tables.Methods Chinese and English databases including The Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMbase,CBM,Wanfang,and CNKI were searched on computer from the inception of the database up to March 2024 for the retrieval of systematic reviews/meta-ana-lyses on anti-VEGF drug therapy for DR treatment.Two evaluators read the literature and extract data separately before conducting an umbrella review of the methodological and reporting quality of the included literature using the AMSTAR 2 scale and PRISMA statement.Results 27 studies were ultimately included,and the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on anti-VEGF drugs for DR treatment was moderate-to-low.The evaluation by AM-STAR 2 showed that there was an urgent need to improve the elaboration of the pre-established research plan and funding sources included in the research.PRISMA results showed that items affecting reporting quality mainly included protocol and registration,literature search,supplementary analysis,and funding sources.Conclusion The methodological and repor-ting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on anti-VEGF drug therapy for DR treatment needs to be improved.Re-searchers should strengthen methodological quality and reporting standards following the requirements of the AMSTAR 2 scale and PRISMA statement while writing systematic reviews/meta-analysis reports,so as to provide evidence with higher quality.

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive recommendations for the management of gout in patients with common comorbidities, such as chronic kidney disease(CKD), cardiovascular disease(CVD), diabetes, osteoarthritis(OA), and gastrointestinal disorders. This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of specialists in endocrinology, rheumatology, nephrology, cardiology, gastroenterology, and methodology. The development process adhered to standard methodologies, including PICO(population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) question deconstruction, systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) for evidence and recommendation evaluation, Delphi voting, and expert consensus. The guideline presents 26 evidence-based recommendations addressing 7 clinical questions for patients with hyperuricemia and gout in the context of comorbidities. Key recommendations include the maintenance of strict serum urate targets, particularly for patients with CKD stage≥3, chronic gouty arthritis, and OA, in order to prevent disease progression. In patients with CVD or diabetes, intra-articular triamcinolone is preferred over systemic glucocorticoids. Prioritized anti-inflammatory treatments for patients with CKD, gastrointestinal diseases and OA are recommended. The guideline also introduces emerging therapies, such as interleukin-1 inhibitors and selective urate transport inhibitors, as potential treatment options for refractory cases. The update offers a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to managing gout, particularly in individuals with associated comorbidities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and emerging new treatments and evidence ensure the optimization of the recommendations.