Article type
Abstract
Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) are critical documents guiding clinical practice to optimise the medical service. High quality of reporting of guidelines can help healthcare workers in clinical practice.
Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality in guidelines of TCM by using Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT).
Methods: CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM and VIP databases were systematically searched from January, 2012 to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened guidelines and extracted data, applied RIGHT to evaluate guidelines of TCM. Any disagreement was solved by discussion or consulting a third reviewer.
Results: Twelve TCM guidelines were included, amongst which 1) six (50%) reported the publication year of the guideline, nine (75%) reported the focus of the guideline, one (8.3%) reported the abbreviations and acronyms of the guideline, nine (75%) provided the corresponding developer in Basic Information; 2) eleven (91.7%) described the aims of the guideline and specific objectives, twelve (100%) reported the target population, seven (58.3%) reported the primary end-users in the Background; 3) only three (25%) indicated the guidelines are based on new systematic reviews, nine (75%) described the approach used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence in the Evidence; 4) five（41.7%）provided clear and actionable recommendations, only one (8.3%) reported values and preferences of the target population, five（41.7%）described the processes and approaches for making decisions in the recommendations; 5) two (16.7%) reported external review, but quality assurance process was not reported in the review and quality assurance; 6) eight (66.7%) described the sources of funding, two (16.7%) reported management of interest in the funding, declaration and management of interest; and, 7) the access, suggestions for further research and limitations of the guidelines were not report in the other information.
Conclusions: Overall reporting quality of TCM guidelines need to be improved.
Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality in guidelines of TCM by using Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT).
Methods: CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM and VIP databases were systematically searched from January, 2012 to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened guidelines and extracted data, applied RIGHT to evaluate guidelines of TCM. Any disagreement was solved by discussion or consulting a third reviewer.
Results: Twelve TCM guidelines were included, amongst which 1) six (50%) reported the publication year of the guideline, nine (75%) reported the focus of the guideline, one (8.3%) reported the abbreviations and acronyms of the guideline, nine (75%) provided the corresponding developer in Basic Information; 2) eleven (91.7%) described the aims of the guideline and specific objectives, twelve (100%) reported the target population, seven (58.3%) reported the primary end-users in the Background; 3) only three (25%) indicated the guidelines are based on new systematic reviews, nine (75%) described the approach used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence in the Evidence; 4) five（41.7%）provided clear and actionable recommendations, only one (8.3%) reported values and preferences of the target population, five（41.7%）described the processes and approaches for making decisions in the recommendations; 5) two (16.7%) reported external review, but quality assurance process was not reported in the review and quality assurance; 6) eight (66.7%) described the sources of funding, two (16.7%) reported management of interest in the funding, declaration and management of interest; and, 7) the access, suggestions for further research and limitations of the guidelines were not report in the other information.
Conclusions: Overall reporting quality of TCM guidelines need to be improved.