WANG Wei 1,2,3 , YANG Nan 4,5,6 , LIU Hui 5,6 , LIU Xiao 5,6 , WAN Xiaoxiang 1,2 , JIAO Wei 1,2 , SHI Guowei 1,2 , CHEN Yaolong 4,5,6 , HUANG Jin 7
  • 1. Department of Urology, the Fifth People’s Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China;
  • 2. Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, P. R. China;
  • 3. Center of Evidence-based Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, P. R. China;
  • 4. Research Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 5. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 6. School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 7. Medical Device Regulatory Research and Evaluation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
CHEN Yaolong, Email: chenyaolong@vip.163.com; HUANG Jin, Email: michael_huangjin@163.com
Urology; Consensus; Clinical practice guideline; Evaluation
10.7507/1672-2531.202303016
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the scientificity, transparency and applicability of the Chinese consensuses on urological diseases published in 2021. Methods PubMed, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data databases and related websites were electronically searched to collect Chinese consensuses on urological diseases from January 1 to December 31, 2021. Each consensus was scored with the scientific, transparent, and applicable rating (STAR) tools, and analyzed by using descriptive methods. Results A total of 28 Chinese consensuses were included. The STAR scores ranged from 9.9 to 32.3 with a mean of 17.3±6.3. The included consensus had a high score ratio in the items such as listing participants and institutions, providing identifiable recommendations, explaining the precautions for implementation of recommendations, having corresponding references for recommendations, and reporting future research directions. However, only 14.3% reported the methodology of consensus formation, and the record of consensus process and consideration of patient preferences, values and costs were not noted. No consensus reported responsibilities of panel specialists in the method section or included experts in the field of guideline methodology or evidence-based medicine. No consensus reported detailed information in managing conflicts of interest. Few reported no affection by funding. No consensus reported methods for collecting and selecting clinical questions, or evaluating, summarizing and grading evidence. Research gaps were not reported in a clear or standardized way. Conclusion As a medical guidance document, expert consensus still plays an important role now in China. The quality of consensus on urological diseases can be further improved in methods of consensus formation, working groups, conflicts of interest, funding, accessibility, clinical questions, retrieval and evaluation of evidence, research gap, etc.

Citation： WANG Wei, YANG Nan, LIU Hui, LIU Xiao, WAN Xiaoxiang, JIAO Wei, SHI Guowei, CHEN Yaolong, HUANG Jin. Scientificity, transparency and applicability of Chinese consensuses on urological diseases published in 2021. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(6): 702-707. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202303016 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Method of using RE-AIM framework to develop implementation outcome indicators

  • Next Article

    The introduction of implementation strategies of implementation science