Evidence-based construction of evaluation tools for transparency of clinical practice guidelines_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

YANG Liu ¹ , LONG Youlin ^1,2 , CHENG Yifan ¹ , HU Tengyue ³ , YANG Zixin ³ , LIU Licen ³ , WANG Qiang ⁴ ,  WANG Kai ⁵ ,  DU Liang ^1,2,6

1. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
2. Medical Device Regulatory Research and Evaluation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
3. West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;
4. Medical Management Service Guidance Center, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
5. Research Associate, Deputy Director of National Institute of Hospital Administration, NHC, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
6. West China Publisher, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

WANG Kai, Email: wangkai@niha.org.cn; DU Liang, Email: duliang0606@vip.sina.com

Keywords：

Clinical practice guideline; Transparency; Evaluation tool; Conflict of interest

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202106027

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To develop a transparent evaluation tool for the transparency of clinical practice guidelines.Methods Literature, books and policy documents related to the transparency of guidelines were retrieved from PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, WanFang Data and CNKI databases to form a pool of items. After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the items were modified and scored to determine whether to be included in the final evaluation system. Expert consensus would determine the organization and evaluation method of the final tool.Results A total of 77 references were included, and 399 items related to transparency of guidelines were extracted. The items pool containing 53 items was formed after normalization and de-duplication. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, the evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines covering 32 items in 6 areas was formed. The established tool consisted of planning (5 items), personnel selection (6 items), conflict of interest management (6 items), recommendation formation process (8 items), external review process (3 items), and guide reporting process (4 items).Conclusions The developed evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines can provide a standard for the formulation, evaluation and utilization of guidelines from the perspective of transparency.

Citation： YANG Liu, LONG Youlin, CHENG Yifan, HU Tengyue, YANG Zixin, LIU Licen, WANG Qiang, WANG Kai, DU Liang. Evidence-based construction of evaluation tools for transparency of clinical practice guidelines. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021, 21(8): 869-875. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202106027 Copy

1.	Djulbegovic B. A framework to bridge the gaps between evidence-based medicine, health outcomes, and improvement and implementation science. J Oncol Pract, 2014, 10(3): 200-202.
2.	Pronovost PJ. Enhancing physicians' use of clinical guidelines. JAMA, 2013, 310(23): 2501-2502.
3.	Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2011.
4.	Ngo-Metzger Q, Moyer V, Grossman D, et al. Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines: update of U. S. preventive services task force policies and procedures. Am J Prev Med, 2018, 54(1S1): S70-S80.
5.	Wise J. Still too little transparency among guideline writers and others. BMJ, 2017, 356: j276.
6.	Talwalkar JA. Improving the transparency and trustworthiness of subspecialty-based clinical practice guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc, 2014, 89(1): 5-7.
7.	Scott IA, Guyatt GH. Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust, 2011, 195(1): 29-33.
8.	Bassand JP, Hamm C. Guidelines for anticoagulant use in acute coronary syndromes. Lancet, 2008, 372(9638): 532-533.
9.	Moulds RF. Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust, 2011, 195(6): 324-325.
10.	van den Bergh RCN, Ost P, Surcel C, et al. Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology. World J Urol, 2018, 36(9): 1489-1494.
11.	Molino CGRC, Romano-Lieber NS, Ribeiro E, et al. Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines. Cien Saude Colet, 2019, 24(10): 3947-3956.
12.	Chen Y, Yang K, Marušic A, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: The RIGHT Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2017, 166(2): 128-132.
13.	Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 2005, 15(9): 1277-1288.
14.	Schünemann JH, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, 等. 指南2.0: 为成功制订指南而系统研发的全面清单. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(9): 1135-1149.
15.	李嘉佳. 基于全球范围内积极老龄化测量工具评价的本土工具构建. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2020.
16.	曾力楠, 张川, 李海龙, 等. 制订指南临床适用性评价工具. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(4): 466-475.
17.	Wayant C, Cooper C, Turner D, et al. Evaluation of the NCCN guidelines using the RIGHT statement and AGREE-Ⅱ instrument: a cross-sectional review. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2019, 24(6): 219-226.
18.	Quintyne KI, Kavanagh P. Appraisal of international guidelines on smoking cessation using the AGREE Ⅱ assessment tool. Ir Med J, 2019, 112(2): 867.
19.	Tokalić R, Viđak M, Buljan I, et al. Reporting quality of european and croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist. Implement Sci, 2018, 13(1): 135.
20.	Mertz M, Strech D. Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach. Implement Sci, 2014, 9: 184.
21.	Schünemann HJ, Lerda D, Dimitrova N, et al. Methods for development of the european commission initiative on breast cancer guidelines: recommendations in the era of guideline transparency. Ann Intern Med, 2019, 171(4): 273-280.
22.	Saito H, Ozaki A, Sawano T, et al. Evaluation of pharmaceutical company payments and conflict of interest disclosures among oncology clinical practice guideline authors in Japan. JAMA Netw Open, 2019, 2(4): e192834.
23.	Irwig MS, Kyinn M, Shefa MC. Financial conflicts of interest among authors of endocrine society clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2018, 103(12): 4333-4338.
24.	Combs T, Tritz D, Ivy H, et al. Financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines for routine screening mammography. J Am Coll Radiol, 2019, 16(11): 1598-1603.
25.	Niforatos JD, Pescatore RM. Financial relationships with industry among guideline authors for the management of acute ischemic stroke. Am J Emerg Med, 2019, 37(5): 921-923.
26.	Horn J, Checketts JX, Jawhar O, et al. Evaluation of industry relationships among authors of otolaryngology clinical practice guidelines. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2018, 144(3): 194-201.
27.	Shimada Y, Ozaki A, Saito H, et al. Pharmaceutical company payments to the authors of the Japanese dementia clinical practice guidelines in 2016. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 2019, 5: 228-230.

1. Djulbegovic B. A framework to bridge the gaps between evidence-based medicine, health outcomes, and improvement and implementation science. J Oncol Pract, 2014, 10(3): 200-202.
2. Pronovost PJ. Enhancing physicians' use of clinical guidelines. JAMA, 2013, 310(23): 2501-2502.
3. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2011.
4. Ngo-Metzger Q, Moyer V, Grossman D, et al. Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines: update of U. S. preventive services task force policies and procedures. Am J Prev Med, 2018, 54(1S1): S70-S80.
5. Wise J. Still too little transparency among guideline writers and others. BMJ, 2017, 356: j276.
6. Talwalkar JA. Improving the transparency and trustworthiness of subspecialty-based clinical practice guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc, 2014, 89(1): 5-7.
7. Scott IA, Guyatt GH. Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust, 2011, 195(1): 29-33.
8. Bassand JP, Hamm C. Guidelines for anticoagulant use in acute coronary syndromes. Lancet, 2008, 372(9638): 532-533.
9. Moulds RF. Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. Med J Aust, 2011, 195(6): 324-325.
10. van den Bergh RCN, Ost P, Surcel C, et al. Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology. World J Urol, 2018, 36(9): 1489-1494.
11. Molino CGRC, Romano-Lieber NS, Ribeiro E, et al. Comparison of the methodological quality and transparency of Brazilian practice guidelines. Cien Saude Colet, 2019, 24(10): 3947-3956.
12. Chen Y, Yang K, Marušic A, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: The RIGHT Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2017, 166(2): 128-132.
13. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 2005, 15(9): 1277-1288.
14. Schünemann JH, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, 等. 指南2.0: 为成功制订指南而系统研发的全面清单. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(9): 1135-1149.
15. 李嘉佳. 基于全球范围内积极老龄化测量工具评价的本土工具构建. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2020.
16. 曾力楠, 张川, 李海龙, 等. 制订指南临床适用性评价工具. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(4): 466-475.
17. Wayant C, Cooper C, Turner D, et al. Evaluation of the NCCN guidelines using the RIGHT statement and AGREE-Ⅱ instrument: a cross-sectional review. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2019, 24(6): 219-226.
18. Quintyne KI, Kavanagh P. Appraisal of international guidelines on smoking cessation using the AGREE Ⅱ assessment tool. Ir Med J, 2019, 112(2): 867.
19. Tokalić R, Viđak M, Buljan I, et al. Reporting quality of european and croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist. Implement Sci, 2018, 13(1): 135.
20. Mertz M, Strech D. Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach. Implement Sci, 2014, 9: 184.
21. Schünemann HJ, Lerda D, Dimitrova N, et al. Methods for development of the european commission initiative on breast cancer guidelines: recommendations in the era of guideline transparency. Ann Intern Med, 2019, 171(4): 273-280.
22. Saito H, Ozaki A, Sawano T, et al. Evaluation of pharmaceutical company payments and conflict of interest disclosures among oncology clinical practice guideline authors in Japan. JAMA Netw Open, 2019, 2(4): e192834.
23. Irwig MS, Kyinn M, Shefa MC. Financial conflicts of interest among authors of endocrine society clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2018, 103(12): 4333-4338.
24. Combs T, Tritz D, Ivy H, et al. Financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines for routine screening mammography. J Am Coll Radiol, 2019, 16(11): 1598-1603.
25. Niforatos JD, Pescatore RM. Financial relationships with industry among guideline authors for the management of acute ischemic stroke. Am J Emerg Med, 2019, 37(5): 921-923.
26. Horn J, Checketts JX, Jawhar O, et al. Evaluation of industry relationships among authors of otolaryngology clinical practice guidelines. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2018, 144(3): 194-201.
27. Shimada Y, Ozaki A, Saito H, et al. Pharmaceutical company payments to the authors of the Japanese dementia clinical practice guidelines in 2016. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 2019, 5: 228-230.

Next Article
Disease burden and attributable risk factors of breast cancer in Chinese females from 1990 to 2019

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Evidence-based construction of evaluation tools for transparency of clinical practice guidelines

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Next Article

Format

Content