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.

Clinical practice guidelines serve as a crucial bridge linking research evidence, clinical practice, and health policy decision-making. However, the guideline domain continues to face persistent challenges, including duplicate guideline development, variable methodological quality, lack of transparent reporting, insufficient implementation and translation, and delayed updates. Focusing solely on "how to develop a high-quality guideline" is no longer sufficient to meet the modern healthcare system's demands for timely, trustworthy, actionable, and dynamically updated recommendations. The emergence of the guideline ecosystem marks a shift in guideline research and practice from a linear development process toward a more systematic governance model. Rooted in the evidence ecosystem, the guideline ecosystem has its own distinct functional positioning, encompassing recommendation formulation, clinical implementation, and life-cycle updating. Looking ahead, China should leverage guideline registries, integrated quality assessment systems, implementation science, dynamic updating mechanisms, and artificial intelligence technologies to promote the transformation of its guideline system from scale expansion to an ecosystem-based model characterized by high quality and sustainability.

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.

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

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.