Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection and systematic analysis of the level of evidence for recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection and identify gaps that limit their development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

CPGs for HP infection were systematically collected from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and six online guideline repositories. Three researchers independently used the AGREE Ⅱ tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the eligible CPGs. In addition, the reporting and recommendation qualities were appraised by using the RIGHT and AGREE-REX tools, respectively. The distribution of the level of evidence and strength of recommendation among evidence-based CPGs was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 7,019 records were identified, and 24 CPGs met the eligibility criteria. Of the eligible CPGs, 19 were evidence-based and 5 were consensus-based. The mean overall rating score of AGREE II was 50.7% (SD = 17.2%). Among six domains, the highest mean score was for scope and purpose (74.4%, SD = 17.7%) and the lowest mean score was for applicability (24.3%, SD = 8.9). Only three of 24 CPGs were high-quality. The mean overall score of recommendation quality was 35.5% (SD = 12.2%), and the mean scores in each domain of AGREE-REX and RIGHT were all ≤ 60%, with values and preferences scoring the lowest (16.6%, SD = 11.9%). A total of 505 recommendations were identified. Strong recommendations accounted for 64.1%, and only 34.3% of strong recommendations were based on high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of CPGs for HP infection is poor, and CPG developers tend to neglect some domains, resulting in a wide variability in the quality of the CPGs. Additionally, CPGs for HP infection lack sufficient high-quality evidence, and the grading of recommendation strength should be based on the quality of evidence. The CPGs for HP infection have much room for improvement and further researches are required to minimize the evidence gap.

Reporting standards for child health research were few and poorly implemented

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify existing reporting standards for child health research, assess the robustness of the standards development process, and evaluate the dissemination of these standards.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, and Google to identify reporting standards for child health research studies. We assessed the adherence of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRG) by the identified reporting standards. We also assessed the use of the identified reporting standards by primary research studies, and the endorsement of the included reporting standards by journals.

RESULTS

We identified six reporting standards for child health research, including two under development. Among the four available standards their median adherence to the 18 main steps of the GDHRG was 58.35% (range: 27.8%-83.3%). None of these four reporting standards had been endorsed by pediatric journals indexed by the Science Citation Index. Only 26 primary research studies declared that they followed one of the reporting standards.

CONCLUSION

There is a quantitative and qualitative paucity of well-developed reporting standards for child health research. The available standards are also poorly implemented. This situation demands an urgent need to develop robust standards and ensure their implementation.

A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist

Background

The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was developed to improve the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). CPGs could provide the recommendations for key clinical issues with alternative care options and adherence to them could improve the outcomes. And, high reporting quality CPGs can assist health workers to incorporate the best evidence into the individual practice. There is no evaluation study on the reporting quality of CPGs in bladder cancer (BLCA). This study assessed the reporting quality of CPGs on BLCA and provided new insights for the development of CPGs in this disease.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in multiple literature databases, including PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) as well as the medical associations and websites of guideline development organizations. Relevant CPGs published between January 2017 and December 2021 were identified. Four trained investigators independently screened the extracted documents to include all eligible CPGs and evaluated whether the items in the RIGHT checklist were reported in each CPG. Subsequently, the reporting rate of each CPG and item, as well as the mean reporting rate of each domain in the RIGHT checklist was calculated.

Results

A total of 23 CPGs related to BLCA were finally included, of which, 22 guidelines were written in English and 1 was published in Chinese. The mean reporting rate of the included CPGs was approximately 65%. The reporting rates of the items in each RIGHT domain were 77% for basic information domain, 75% for recommendations domain, 72% for evidence domain, 69% for background domain, 43% for funding and declaration and management of interest domain, 35% for review and quality assurance domain, and 41% for other information domain. The reporting rate was determined as the mean value in Office Excel 2019.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of BLCA CPGs related to the domains of funding and declaration and management of interest domain, review and quality assurance domain, and other information domain is poor and warrants improvement in the future.

Improving WHO's understanding of WHO guideline uptake and use in Member States: a scoping review

Background

WHO publishes public health and clinical guidelines to guide Member States in achieving better health outcomes. Furthermore, WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work for 2019–2023 prioritizes strengthening its normative functional role and uptake of normative and standard-setting products, including guidelines at the country level. Therefore, understanding WHO guideline uptake by the Member States, particularly the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is of utmost importance for the organization and scholarship.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using a comprehensive search strategy to include published literature in English between 2007 and 2020. The review was conducted between May and June 2021. We searched five electronic databases including CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus. We also searched Google Scholar as a supplementary source. The review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews) guidelines for reporting the searches, screening and identification of evaluation studies from the literature. A narrative synthesis of the evidence around key barriers and challenges for WHO guideline uptake in LMICs is thematically presented.

Results

The scoping review included 48 studies, and the findings were categorized into four themes: (1) lack of national legislation, regulations and policy coherence, (2) inadequate experience, expertise and training of healthcare providers for guideline uptake, (3) funding limitations for guideline uptake and use, and (4) inadequate healthcare infrastructure for guideline compliance. These challenges were situated in the Member States’ health systems. The findings suggest that governance was often weak within the existing health systems amongst most of the LMICs studied, as was the guidance provided by WHO’s guidelines on governance requirements. This challenge was further exacerbated by a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms for uptake and implementation of guidelines. In addition, the WHO guidelines themselves were either unclear and were technically challenging for some health conditions; however, WHO guidelines were primarily used as a reference by Member States when they developed their national guidelines.

Conclusions

The challenges identified reflect the national health systems’ (in)ability to allocate, implement and monitor the guidelines. Historically this is beyond the remit of WHO, but Member States could benefit from WHO implementation guidance on requirements and needs for successful uptake and use of WHO guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00899-y.

Strengthening the quality of clinical trials of acupuncture: a guideline protocol

INTRODUCTION

Acupuncture has been accepted in many Western countries and clinical trials have been increasing recently. However, the problems of insufficient and low-quality evidence remain, and substantially hinder the development of acupuncture clinical trials. We therefore aim to develop a guideline to strengthen the quality of acupuncture clinical trials, in accordance with WHO handbook for guideline development and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare. The guideline will help to improve the quality of acupuncture clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for studies on the quality of acupuncture clinical trials using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database, The Cochrane Library, the WHO and Health Technology Assessment websites, and other sources. We will also check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will systematically evaluate the quality of acupuncture clinical trials, and extract and summarise the quality problems and countermeasures of such trials. We will also systematically review clinical trial quality control manuals and systems and formulate research questions on quality control in acupuncture clinical trials. Finally, we will develop the guideline and establish a comprehensive quality control system to ensure high quality acupuncture clinical trials. We will also evaluate the guideline and will update the guideline to reflect new scientific evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee approval and informed consent are not required for developing guideline because only published data will be used, however, we will interview the patients, the ethics committee approval has been got from West China Hospital of Sichuan Unversity (Number: 2021-1188). We will publish all manuscripts arising from this research and present the findings at conferences.

GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER

IPGRP-2021CN093.

Efficacy and safety of plasma exchange or immunoadsorption for the treatment of option neuritis in demyelinating diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are no systematic reviews yet that evaluated the effects of PE/IA in patients with optic neuritis (ON) in demyelinating diseases. A meta-analysis of available study is needed to further explore the value of plasma exchange (PE) or immunoadsorption (IA) in treating ON in demyelinating diseases.

METHODS

All relevant articles published on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, Wanfang, Sinomed and ophthalmology professional websites were searched. Study characteristics, demographic characteristics, clinical features and outcome measures were extracted. Response rate, adverse events (AE) rate, serious adverse event (SAE) rate, the log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), visual outcome scale (VOS) and expanded disability status scales (EDSS) were evaluated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

35 studies were included between 1985 and 2020, containing 1191 patients. The response rates of PE and IA in acute attack of ON were 68% and 82% respectively. LogMAR (-0.60 to - 1.42) and VOS (-1.10 to -1.82) had been significantly improved from within 1 month to more than 1 month after PE treatment. Besides, we found that logMAR improved 1.78, 0.95 and 0.38, respectively ,when the time from symptom onset to the first PE/IA was less than 21 days, 21-28 days, and more than 28 days. The pooled mean difference of EDSS was -1.14.Adverse effects rate in patients with PE or IA were 0.20 and 0.06, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis provided evidence that PE/IA treatment was an effective and safe intervention, and it is recommended that early initiation of PE/IA treatment is critical.

Analysis of the Status and Trends of Chinese Clinical Practice Guideline Development Between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the status and trends of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during the time period 2010-2020 and explore their methodological characteristics. Then, based on the strengths and weaknesses in development, offer several recommendations for the quality improvement which will serve as a reference for the users and developers of CPG. Introduction: With the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the CPGs play an increasingly important role in healthcare decision-making both in China and worldwide. Inclusion criteria: The CPGs that have been used to help the health professionals in the healthcare decision-making were included. Methodology: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 for the studies describing the general and methodological characteristics of Chinese CPGs. Comparisons of the methodological characteristics between the groups were conducted using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The M-K test was adopted to identify the monotonically increasing or decreasing trends of methodological characteristics over the timespan. Results: A total of 2,654 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved over the time span. From 2010 to 2020,the guidelines had differing characteristics and covered a wide range of subjects. In total, 2,318(87.34%) guidelines focused on Western Medicine. Eight (0.30%) had been developed for patient versions of guidelines, 10(0.38%) were tentative guidelines, and 16(0.60%) were rapid advice guidelines. Medical specialty societies (including their branches) (71.1%) were the main guideline makers. The most addressed diseases were neoplasms (14.43%). The target population is mainly adults (84.97%). The methodological quality of consensus-based (CB)-CPGs was obviously lower than evidence-based (EB)-CPGs. Except for the item, "recommendations were based on evidence of systematic reviews," there were statistical differences in all other methodological items between the EB-CPGS and CB-CPGS (P < 0.01). Higher methodological quality has been observed in EB-CPGs. All the data relating to the methodological characteristics indicated that higher methodological quality was present in the guidelines using GRADE (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved between 2010 and 2020. CB-CPGs have also paid attention to the methodology quality, but obviously, this is lower than that in the EB-CPGs.

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.

Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 4: The reporting and methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published between 2014 and 2018: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding.

CONCLUSION

Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on melanoma using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND

The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) instrument was launched in 2016 to improve the reporting of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on melanoma using RIGHT.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases and medical society websites until November 2020 to identify guidelines for melanoma published since 2018. The reporting quality of included guidelines was assessed by calculating the percentages of the 35 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported. We stratified the results by selected characteristics to describe the correlation of these factors with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 20 guidelines were identified and analyzed. The mean reporting rate was greater than 50% in five of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist; the remaining two domains (Other information, Review and quality assurance) both had a mean reporting rate of 35.0%. The mean overall reporting rate was 63.7%. No CPG considered equity, feasibility or acceptability of the recommendations (item 14c), and only one CPG described the role of funders (item 18b). Guidelines that reported funding or were published in higher-impact journals tended to have a higher reporting quality, whereas the reporting rate in the one included Chinese-language CPG was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality of melanoma CPGs tends to be relatively good. The CPGs developed in China were however an exception. The use of the 2016 RIGHT tool in guideline development should be encouraged to support rigorous and transparent reporting.

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.

Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19

Background

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic negatively affects children’s health. Many guidelines have been developed for treating children with COVID-19. The quality of the existing guidelines and the consistency of recommendations remains unknown. Therefore, we aim to review the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for children with COVID-19 systematically.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, guideline-related websites, and Google. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. The consistency of recommendations across the guidelines and their supporting evidence were analyzed.

Results

Twenty guidelines were included in this study. The mean AGREE II score and mean RIGHT reporting rate of the included guidelines were 37% (range, 22–62%) and 52% (range, 31–89%), respectively. As for methodological quality, no guideline was classified as high, one guideline (5%) moderate, and 19 (95%) low. In terms of reporting quality, one guideline (5%) was rated as high, 12 guidelines (60%) moderate, and seven (35%) low. Among included guidelines, recommendations varied greatly in the use of remdesivir (recommend: 25%, not recommend: 45%, not report: 30%), interferon (recommend: 15%, not recommend: 50%, not report: 35%), glucocorticoids (recommend: 50%, not recommend: 20%, not report: 30%), and intravenous immune globulin (recommend: 35%, not recommend: 30%, not report: 35%). None of the guidelines cited clinical trials from children with COVID-19.

Conclusions

The methodological and reporting quality of guidelines for treating children with COVID-19 was not high. Recommendations were inconsistent across different guidelines. The supporting evidence from children with COVID-19 was very limited.