• 1. Medical Management Service Guidance Center, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 10004, P.R.China;
  • 2. Department of Pharmacy/Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 4. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 5. West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 6. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 7. West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
  • 8. Department Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, P.R.China;
  • 9. Evidence-based Pharmacy Committee, Chinese Pharmaceutical Association, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
  • 10. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Tianjin University of TCM, Tianjin 301617, P.R.China;
WANG Qiang, Email: jason2019@sina.cn; ZHANG Lingli, Email: zhanglingli@scu.edu.cn
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objectives To establish statistical analysis and result reporting model for evaluation of the applicability of the clinical guidelines. We conducted an empirical study for clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China.Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted to select 6 to 8 doctors in geriatric, endocrinology, nephrology or related departments from medical institutions. The questionnaire was filled by doctors at a conference and electronic questionnaires were sent to those who did not attend the conference. Descriptive analysis was carried out for characteristics of evaluators, scores of each dimension, access to guidelines and factors affecting implementation. The Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test and Nemenyi test were used for multi-group comparison and pairwise comparison. Multiple linear regressions with the stepwise strategy were used to screen out the association factors.Results A total of 725 questionnaires were collected in this survey. There were 722 valid questionnaires with an active recovery rate of 99.6%. The results showed the accessibility score was lowest and the acceptability score was highest. The results of multi-group comparison and multiple linear regression analysis showed that familiarity with the guidelines was the influencing factor of each score (P<0.05). The guidelines were primarily obtained from academic conferences (52.1%), WeChat (45.4%), and biomedical literature databases (43.5%). Among the evaluators, 44 (41.9%) believed that there were implementation obstacles in the guidelines, among which 136 (18.8%), 134 (18.5%) and 133 (18.4%) believed that implementation obstacles were medical personnel factor, patient factor and environmental factor.Conclusions In this study, a data analysis and result report model for the assessment of the applicability of the guidelines is established to provide evidence for the development/revision of the guidelines.

Citation: HUANG Chao, LI Hailong, ZHANG Chuan, ZENG Linan, HUANG Zongyao, YI Qiusha, LIU Guanjian, KANG Deying, LIU Qiaolan, ZHAO Rongsheng, ZHANG Junhua, LI Youping, WANG Qiang, ZHANG Lingli. An empirical study on the evaluation of the clinical applicability of the guideline for diabetes. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(5): 536-542. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201909126 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Ultrasonic diagnosis of synovial hemangioma of the knee
  • Next Article

    An empirical study on evaluation of clinical applicability of kidney transplantation guideline