Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
In recent years, with the increase in the number of CPGs, their quality has received more and more attention. However, the institutions and handbooks for guideline development have not yet given unified requirements for who should participate in the development of CPGs and how to form a GDG scientifically and reasonably, and there is also no clear standard for the research fields, scopes, scales and responsibilities of GDG.
Objectives:
To analysis and compare the guideline-development group (GDG) formation from the existing clinical Practice guidelines (CPGs).
Methods:
We analyzed the GDG of 397 CPGs published in Chinese journals and 150 CPGs presented on Guideline International Network (randomly sampled 30 guidelines each year for a total of 150 guidelines) from 2013 to 2017, including the reporting situation, composition, scale and methodologist of GDGs.
Results:
Of the 397 Chinese guidelines, 340 (85.6%) of them reported the composition of GDG consisting of secretary, writing group, consensus group, expert group, evidence group, steering group, advisory group and so on. There are many names for groups and the top three reported frequency groups are the writing group, the expert group, and the development group. In the guidelines that reported GDG, the number of groups ranged from 1 to 6, and the total number of people in GDG ranged from 3 to 137. Of the 150 G-I-N guidelines, 102 (68%) of them reported the composition of GDG and the top three reported frequency groups are the expert group, the development group, and the writing group. In the G-I-N guidelines that reported GDG, the number of groups ranged from 1 to 5, and the total number of people in GDG ranged from 1 to 60. Only 7 (1.8%) Chinese guidelines and 5 (3.3%) G-I-N guidelines clearly reported the involvement and the number of methodologists in the GDG, and the number of methodologists ranged from 1 to 4. More than 90% of the Chinese and G-I-N guidelines did not report the composition of the GDG or only reported the guidelines were developed and wrote by clinician. There are few guidelines reported the clear responsibilities of each group in GDG.
Conclusions:
At present, the Chinese and English CPGs are not standardized enough on the reporting of the GDG, whether it is about the classification of GDG, the name of GDG, or the participation of the methodologist. In order to ensure the scientificity of the guideline development methods, more guidance and handbooks on how to establish the GDG are needed in the future.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None
In recent years, with the increase in the number of CPGs, their quality has received more and more attention. However, the institutions and handbooks for guideline development have not yet given unified requirements for who should participate in the development of CPGs and how to form a GDG scientifically and reasonably, and there is also no clear standard for the research fields, scopes, scales and responsibilities of GDG.
Objectives:
To analysis and compare the guideline-development group (GDG) formation from the existing clinical Practice guidelines (CPGs).
Methods:
We analyzed the GDG of 397 CPGs published in Chinese journals and 150 CPGs presented on Guideline International Network (randomly sampled 30 guidelines each year for a total of 150 guidelines) from 2013 to 2017, including the reporting situation, composition, scale and methodologist of GDGs.
Results:
Of the 397 Chinese guidelines, 340 (85.6%) of them reported the composition of GDG consisting of secretary, writing group, consensus group, expert group, evidence group, steering group, advisory group and so on. There are many names for groups and the top three reported frequency groups are the writing group, the expert group, and the development group. In the guidelines that reported GDG, the number of groups ranged from 1 to 6, and the total number of people in GDG ranged from 3 to 137. Of the 150 G-I-N guidelines, 102 (68%) of them reported the composition of GDG and the top three reported frequency groups are the expert group, the development group, and the writing group. In the G-I-N guidelines that reported GDG, the number of groups ranged from 1 to 5, and the total number of people in GDG ranged from 1 to 60. Only 7 (1.8%) Chinese guidelines and 5 (3.3%) G-I-N guidelines clearly reported the involvement and the number of methodologists in the GDG, and the number of methodologists ranged from 1 to 4. More than 90% of the Chinese and G-I-N guidelines did not report the composition of the GDG or only reported the guidelines were developed and wrote by clinician. There are few guidelines reported the clear responsibilities of each group in GDG.
Conclusions:
At present, the Chinese and English CPGs are not standardized enough on the reporting of the GDG, whether it is about the classification of GDG, the name of GDG, or the participation of the methodologist. In order to ensure the scientificity of the guideline development methods, more guidance and handbooks on how to establish the GDG are needed in the future.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None