ZHANG Lin 1,2,3 , ZHAO Mingjuan 1,4 , HUANG Ruixiu 1,3,5 , LIANG Dandan 1,5 , ZENG Xiantao 1 , ZHAO Bo 2,3 , JIN Yinghui 1
  • 1. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University; Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University; Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, The Second Clinical College, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, P.R.China;
  • 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, 475000, P.R.China;
  • 3. Center for Evidence-Based and clinical research, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, 475000, P.R.China;
  • 4. Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, 475000, P.R.China;
  • 5. College of nursing and health, Henan University, Kaifeng, 475000, P.R.China;
ZHAO Bo, Email: hizhaobo@aliyun.com; JIN Yinghui, Email: jinyinghui0301@163.com
Clinical practice guideline; Multidisciplinary; Patient; Systematic review; Evidence-based medicine
10.7507/1672-2531.201805164
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To provide the referencefor the guideline development and revision in China, we analyzed the composition of personnel who participated in developing Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)published in 2017. Methods CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and Google scholar were electronically searched to collect Chinese CPGs published from January 1st to December 31st, 2017. Two researchers independently screened literatures, extracted data of interest, such as composition and distribution of personnel, and analyzed the composition of personnel with Microsoft excel 2013. Results A total of 54 guidelines were included, and the majority of which are for treatment. Among which, 49 were developed by the associations accounting for 90.7%. Twenty-four (44.4%) guidelines reported the geographical distribution and unit ownership of the guideline developers, such as hospitals, schools, institutions (academies, institutes, laboratories, nursing homes, etc.). Almost all of the guidelines were developed by the cooperative work of experts from multidisciplinary clinical setting, 15 (27.8%) of which mentioned the participation of the methodologist. Among which, 13 (24.1%) of them involved literature retrieval experts, 2 (3.7%) of them involved epidemiologists, 2 (3.7%) of them involved evidence-based medicine experts, 1 (1.9%) of them involved statistical expert. Three of which mentioned external peer review. None of them has systematic review team. Conclusion In China, the CPG formulation/revision organization is still not considering the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, methodology researchers, and patients’ participation and external evaluation teams, which will affect the quality, practicability and maneuverability of CPG. We propose that multidisciplinary cooperation should be strengthened in the future while developing CPG, giving full consideration to the importance of medical personnel and the values of patients, and promoting the application of methodology.

Citation： ZHANG Lin, ZHAO Mingjuan, HUANG Ruixiu, LIANG Dandan, ZENG Xiantao, ZHAO Bo, JIN Yinghui. Reporting status of personnel composition and distribution in Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in 2017: a survey analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(1): 62-72. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201805164 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Investigation of magazines or journal editors' participation in the development of clinical practice guidelines in China

  • Next Article

    Identification of the influencing factors of admission priority decision in department of respiration in West China Hospital based on logistic regression