• 1. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
  • 2. The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
  • 3. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
  • 4. Chinese Evidence-based Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;
  • 5. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
  • 6. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
  • 7. Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
LEIJun-qiang, Email: leijq1990@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective To investigate the recommendations on imaging diagnosis in Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods We electronically searched WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI and CBM databases from inception to December 31, 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The method of bibliometrics was used to analyze the data (including basic characteristics, strength of recommendation, quality of evidence, etc.). Results A total of 341 CPGs formulating the recommendations on diagnosis were included. 48.7% (166/341) guidelines developed the recommendations on imaging diagnosis (a total of 534). 25.7% (137/534) recommendations were with the symbols of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation, and 18.9% (101/534) with special words such as recommend, suggest. 22.3% (119/534) recommendations reported the strength of recommendation. Of which, 38.7% (46/119) were strong and 16.0% (19/119) were weak. However, 23.9% (11/46) strong recommendations were based on low quality of evidence. And 42.1% (8/19) weak recommendations were based on high quality of evidence. Conclusion Among Chinese CPGs formulating the recommendations on diagnosis, the number of CPGs with recommendations on imaging is about 50%. And the quantity increases by years. The proportions of recommendations on imaging which report the strength of recommendation and/or quality of evidence are low. Meanwhile, the rating systems are uniform. Then the developers do not report the explanation for the strong recommendations based on low quality of evidence or the weak recommendations based on high quality of evidence in guideline.

Citation: PEICai-xia, WANGMeng-shu, LILe, ZHANGHong-xia, LIRui, CHANGXiao-nan, WANGYin-zhong, DULiang, YANGKe-hu, LEIJun-qiang, CHENYao-long. Recommendations on Imaging Diagnosis in Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Cross-sectional Study. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(2): 130-134. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160023 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Risk Factors Analysis of Community-acquired Urinary Tract Infections Caused by Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli
  • Next Article

    Health-Related Quality of Life for Disease Population in China based on EQ-5D: A Systematic Review