Cargando…

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 impr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Cheng, Wu, Xuan, Song, Wenping, Li, Dongbei, Hao, Lidan, Li, Xiaojing, Zhang, Wenzhou, Li, Ding
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507483
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-712
_version_ 1784846195421609984
author Cheng, Cheng
Wu, Xuan
Song, Wenping
Li, Dongbei
Hao, Lidan
Li, Xiaojing
Zhang, Wenzhou
Li, Ding
author_facet Cheng, Cheng
Wu, Xuan
Song, Wenping
Li, Dongbei
Hao, Lidan
Li, Xiaojing
Zhang, Wenzhou
Li, Ding
author_sort Cheng, Cheng
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9732693
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97326932022-12-10 A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist Cheng, Cheng Wu, Xuan Song, Wenping Li, Dongbei Hao, Lidan Li, Xiaojing Zhang, Wenzhou Li, Ding Transl Androl Urol Original Article 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. AME Publishing Company 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9732693/ /pubmed/36507483 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-712 Text en 2022 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Cheng, Cheng
Wu, Xuan
Song, Wenping
Li, Dongbei
Hao, Lidan
Li, Xiaojing
Zhang, Wenzhou
Li, Ding
A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title_full A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title_fullStr A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title_full_unstemmed A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title_short A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist
title_sort reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the right checklist
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507483
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-712
work_keys_str_mv AT chengcheng areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT wuxuan areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT songwenping areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT lidongbei areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT haolidan areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT lixiaojing areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT zhangwenzhou areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT liding areportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT chengcheng reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT wuxuan reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT songwenping reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT lidongbei reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT haolidan reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT lixiaojing reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT zhangwenzhou reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist
AT liding reportingqualityevaluationoftheclinicalpracticeguidelinesforbladdercancerbasedontherightchecklist