Reporting specifications regarding epilepsy practice guidelines based on the RIGHT reporting checklist: an analysis

Analysis of reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to assess the reporting quality of the clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.

METHODS

We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biological Literature Service System, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Elsevier clinicalkey, BMJ Database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization Network and other websites. We collected clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer with published between 1 January 2017 and 1 April 2021 after release of the RIGHT checklist. Two reviewers extracted the basic information independently and conducted a RIGHT evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighteen guidelines/consensuses were included, 10 from China and 8 from other countries. The average reporting rate was 74.1%±11.2%. Thirteen items had 100% reporting rate, and the reporting rate for items No. 16 (11.1%), 17 (16.7%) and 18b (22.2%) was low. Basic information had the highest reporting rate (100%), whereas review and quality assurance had the lowest (13.9%). The average reporting rate of guidelines/consensuses published in other countries was higher than in China [p=0.005; odds ration (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.28]. The average reporting rate of the guidelines was higher than that of the consensus statements (p<0.001; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.31). The reporting rates of guidelines/consensuses focused on whole body (79.0%±12.7%) were higher than local organ (69.2%±7.3%) metastases (p=0.005; OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting using the RIGHT checklist varied among the guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer. Low-quality items were external review and quality assurance. Developers of guidelines/consensuses should aim to improve the reporting quality in the future.

Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of AML have great value in clinical practice. However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not yet been evaluated. This is the first study aiming to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent AML CPGs published worldwide using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) to extract CPGs for AML published between January 2016 and December 2020. Websites for guideline development organizations and medical associations were also searched. Two independent researchers assessed compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 checklist items and summarized reporting rates for the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 16 guidelines, of which 3 (18.8%) were written in Chinese and 13 (81.3%) were written in English. The average overall reporting rate of the 16 guidelines was 52.9%, and only 7 CPGs (43.8%) had a reporting rate >50%. The average reporting rates of the 7 domains (basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding, declaration, and management of interests; and other information) were 79.2%, 62.5%, 38.8%, 53.6%, 21.9%, 32.8%, and 43.8%, respectively. For the 35 checklist items, the average reporting rate was 52.9%, and only 16 items had a reporting rate >50%, of which 5 items were reported by all the guidelines. There was 1 item which was not reported by any of the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of recently published AML guidelines remains poor. While the recommendations of CPGs have great value in clinical practice, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML still needs to be improved.

A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women. The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on breast cancer has been shown to be heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of breast cancer CPGs published in years 2018-2020, using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) as well as websites of guideline organizations for CPGs on breast cancer published between 2018 and 2020. We used the RIGHT checklist to evaluate the reporting quality of the included guidelines by assessing whether the CPGs adhered to each item of the checklist and calculated the proportions of appropriately reported RIGHT checklist items. We also presented the adherence reporting rates for each guideline and the mean rates for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.

Results

A total of 45 guidelines were included. Eighteen (40.0%) guidelines had an overall reporting rate below 50% and only three (6.7%) reported more than 80% of the items. The domains “Basic information” and “Background” had the highest reporting rates (75.9% and 62.5%, respectively). The mean reporting rates of the domains “Evidence”, “Recommendation”, “Review and quality assurance”, “Funding and declaration and management of interests” and “Other information” were 42.7%, 53.0%, 33.3%, 45.0%, and 44.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

The reporting quality varied among guidelines for breast cancer, showing the need for improvement in reporting the contents. Guideline developers should pay more attention to reporting the evidence, review and quality assurance, and funding and declaration and management of interests in future.

An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the prevention, surveillance, diagnosis and management of HCC are essential to guide clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent CPGs for HCC published worldwide.

METHODS

We systematically searched literature databases and websites of guideline development organizations and medical associations to extract CPGs on HCC published between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the reporting quality using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We assessed for each of the 35 RIGHT checklist items whether the guidelines reported the corresponding information. We calculated the mean (± standard error of the mean, SEM) percentages of the guidelines' compliance with the items (reporting rate), both overall and for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 22 guidelines, of which three (14%) were written in Chinese and 19 (86%) in English. The mean ±SEM overall reporting rate in the twenty-two guidelines was 56%±4%. The reporting rates of the seven domains were the following: basic information 81%±3%, background 58%±6%, evidence 58%±6%, recommendations 59%±5%, review and quality assurance 34%±10%, funding and declaration and management of interests 39%±4%, and other information 23%±6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of the recently published guidelines for HCC was suboptimal. While there is no doubt about the great value of the CPGs' recommendations in clinical practice, the reporting in CPGs for HCC still needs improvement.