• 1. Department of Pharmacy/Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 2. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 3. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 4. West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 5. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 6. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, P.R.China;
  • 7. Evidence-based Pharmacy Committee, Chinese Pharmaceutical Association, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
  • 8. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Tianjin University of TCM, Tianjin 301617, P.R.China;
  • 9. Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan Universicy, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 10. Medical Management Service Guidance Center, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
WANG Qiang, Email: jason2019@sina.cn; ZHANG Lingli, Email: zhanglingli@scu.edu.cn
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objectives To investigate the current status of the clinical applicability evaluation tools, and to provide some foundation for establishment of the clinical applicability evaluation index system.Methods 7 databases, 6 guideline databases and 16 academic institutions and the administrative department of health website were systematically searched from inception to April 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then included the literature related to the applicability of clinical guidelines. The CPG clinical applicability evaluation index was initially prepared through the subject comprehensive method.Results A total of 19 articles were finally included. Among them, there were 4 evaluation tools for the clinical applicability of the guidelines, and 15 evaluation tools for the guideline clinical applicability evaluation items. Through combing and comparison, we found that these tools had differences in evaluators, evaluation fields and items.Conclusions The global guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools have different kinds of problems, such as that the tools are not targeted, the indicators are not well-formed, and the methodological knowledge requirement of the evaluators is high. There is still a lack of guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools from target users’ view.

Citation: LIN Mao, ZENG Linan, LI Jialian, ZHANG Chuan, HUANG Liang, YANG Chunsong, LI Hailong, YI Qiusha, KANG Deying, LIU Guanjian, ZHAO Rongsheng, ZHANG Junhua, LI Youping, LIU Hanmin, WANG Qiang, ZHANG Lingli. Global guideline clinical applicability evaluation tool: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(4): 437-443. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201904132 Copy

  • Previous Article

    A systematic review of SARS-infected pregnant females, newborns, children and adolescents
  • Next Article

    Efficacy and safety of butylphthalide soft capsule in the treatment of vascular dementia: a meta-analysis