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

Clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease, characterised by respiratory, physical and psychological dysfunctions. Rehabilitation could effectively alleviate the symptoms and promote recovery of the physical and mental health of patients with COVID-19. Recently, rehabilitation medical institutions have issued clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements involving recommendations for rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19. This systematic review aims to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of the guidance documents, evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations and summarise the recommendations with respect to rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19 to provide a quick reference for front-line clinicians, therapists and patients as well as reasonable suggestions for future guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and websites of governments or organisations (eg, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and WHO) will be searched for eligible CPGs and expert consensus statements from inception to August 2022. CPGs and expert consensus statements published in Chinese or English and presenting recommendations for modern functional rehabilitation techniques and/or traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation techniques for COVID-19 will be included. Reviews, interpretations, old versions of CPGs and expert consensus statements and those for the management of other diseases during the pandemic will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently review each article, extract data, appraise the methodological quality following the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II tool and assess the reporting quality with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement will be used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements. Agreement between reviewers will be calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. We will also summarise the recommendations for rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19. The results will be narratively described and presented as tables or figures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not needed for this systematic review because information from published documents will be used. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020190761.

Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines

Introduction

Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge.

Methods

We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined.

Results

Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%).

Conclusion

The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.